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

includehosts mandatory?

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:14:07 +0100
Message-ID: <4847BC6F.1020100@icra.org>
To: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>

Sorry folks, can I just raise this again as a separate thread because a) 
I'm confused and so I'd like to settled one way or another and b) I'd 
like it recorded in a way I can find it again.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: That the <includehosts> element be mandatory for 
all IRI set definitions.

In favour 1: It gives us a way to ensure syntactically that an IRI set 
is never empty

In favour 2: It seems to feel right and generally make sense for our use 
cases.

Against 1: It places a limit on flexibility that may be unwarranted or 
undesirable. Although not formalised (thankfully), a lot of web sites do 
things the same way such as /images, /contact, /about etc. It wouldn't 
be too hard to come up with a reason therefore one day to produce a DR 
that described all resources on all domains where the path starts with 
/images for example.

Against 2: <includeiripattern>, the WAF-inspired element, always 
includes a host so you always end up with redundant elements if you use 
that. Likewise if you use <includeregex> you don't necessarily, (but 
might) need <includehosts>.

I can't decide whether I'm for or against. I think I'm 55-45 against but 
remain to be convinced one way or the other.

Phil.
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 10:14:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:13 GMT