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

Re: "GRDDL Agents" section, normative security text for review (# issue-conformance-labels)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:51:39 -0500
Message-Id: <eb4343962e82e74a559dd12f12ea3b1a@w3.org>
Cc: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>

On Feb 18, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Murray Maloney wrote:
> At 04:01 PM 2/17/2007 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> [...]
>> Yes, it should have some discretion. I meant for "local policy
>> an configuration" to convey that sense of discretion...
>> "Given a URI I of an information resource IR, and an XPath node N for 
>> a
>> representation of IR, subject to security considerations below and 
>> local
>> policy and configuration, a GRDDL Agent should:"
>> Is that perhaps clear enough on second look?
> That would be enough for me, because I understand the intent of the 
> exception,
> but I wonder whether other readers would be able to extract the same 
> meaning.
> I think that we need to somehow make it clear that a GRDDL-aware agent 
> is an
> agent which acts on behalf of a client that may exercise some 
> authority over
> the agent and may interdict some of the agent's actions to suit it's 
> own policies.
> While that may seem intuitive to the members of the WG, I doubt that 
> our intuition
> can be gleaned from the spec.

I can't think of anything more clear. I think what's there is OK, but 
open to suggestions.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 19 February 2007 20:51:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:10 UTC