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

RE: includehosts mandatory?

From: Smith, Kevin, \(R&D\) VF-Group <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:06:43 +0200
Message-ID: <37AC1116121D3F43B9A67CB16E2E79FF3EE205@VF-MBX11.internal.vodafone.com>
To: "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>, "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>

Hi Phil,

My understanding was that if we support other identifiers (ISAN, ISBN)
etc. then <includehost>s would not be relevant for those, only for those
retrievable over the Web.

NB a thought to park for now: so you could describe the characteristics
of a bunch of SMTP addresses using POWDER, couldn't you? That seems
quite powerful.

>> It gives us a way to ensure syntactically that an IRI set is never
empty
It seems like we will need two-step validation due to some features
absent in XML Schema, so this could be picked up by an additional check
(we've mentioned using XSLT as a way to enforce business rules, and also
to create a neat HTML page teling you what the DR says in plain
English).

Cheers,
Kev


-----Original Message-----
From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer
Sent: 05 June 2008 11:14
To: Public POWDER
Subject: includehosts mandatory?


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 11:07:34 GMT

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