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 13:26:04 +0200
Message-ID: <37AC1116121D3F43B9A67CB16E2E79FF3EE212@VF-MBX11.internal.vodafone.com>
To: "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>, "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>


 >> You're saying that we already need a 2-step validation and that we
can therefore check that an IRI set definition is not empty without
having to mandate <includehosts>? That would be good I think.

Exactly, so -1 from me for a mandatory includehosts.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer
Sent: 05 June 2008 12:21
To: Public POWDER
Subject: Re: includehosts mandatory?




Smith, Kevin, (R&D) VF-Group wrote:
> 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.

True - but POWDER-BASE only has <in/excluderegex> with no other child
elements allowed for <iriset>. Things like ISAN numbers would exist in a
a format that is not POWDER but that can be transformed into
POWDER-BASE. Therefore the question about <includehosts> only applies
specifically to POWDER and not BASE or S.

> 
> 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.

Yes indeed, and POWDER-BASE can do that, therefore conformant POWDER
Processors can do that which is, I think, at the heart of the Stasinos
plan.

> 
>>> 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).

You're saying that we already need a 2-step validation and that we can
therefore check that an IRI set definition is not empty without having
to mandate <includehosts>? That would be good I think.

P
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 11:27:05 GMT

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