W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > February 2007

detailed security considerations (#issue-conformance-labels)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:49:22 -0600
To: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1171388962.7497.1060.camel@dirk>

Please note a new comment...
(formal) comment on security considerations Jeremy Carroll (Tuesday, 13
February)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007JanMar/0053.html

It's a great contribution, but it uses "GRDDL processor"
where the editors have agreed on "GRDDL-aware agent"
 http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-scenarios/#GRDDLAwareAgent
and the WG has agreed not to use it as a conformance label.
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-conformance-labels


This looks like sufficient new information to re-consider
that decision, to me.

Also perhaps relevant to #issue-conformance-labels is
a comment from Dave Beckett...

"I think more than just declaring the GRDDL rules is needed,
you need to say something about processing order as
well as how the GRDDL profile URI and document are handled."
 --
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007JanMar/0048.html

I'm not yet convinced by Dave's comment (I'd like to see a
example/test-sketch of where the rules are inadequate), but I
think the WG should be considering it rather than claiming we have
no open issues.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 17:49:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT