W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Another attempt at 'cascading DRs'

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:32:38 +0000
Message-ID: <47B47B36.6030603@hpl.hp.com>
To: public-powderwg@w3.org

I am less than convinced by this thread.

Independently of the operational vs RDF usage, there is a 'how do we 
find the relevant DR' problem.

If we find the DRs using a link (either a link element, or a link 
header) then there is no need for the cascade.

If we find the DR by some other means then the question is what to do if 
it is wrong. If I find the DR by some other means, then how do I find 
the rest of the cascade to know it has been overwritten.

So - I am not clear what problem this thread is addressing.

I think we have much of the use-case defined:

a web site that is general child-safe, but a single page that is not, 
e.g. a medical photograph of genitals.

And the first question is how do we describe this.

The second question is how does a powder agent find the descriptions in 
order to understand them.


Scenario A) an end user clicks on a link U and the powder agent has to 
find and apply all relevant trusted powder descriptions, this can 
involve dereferencing U

Scenario B) an end user is doing a search and we want to process the 
uris in a database without dereferencing them.

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 17:33:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:03 UTC