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

Re: includehosts mandatory?

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:33:59 +0100
Message-ID: <4847CF27.7040602@icra.org>
To: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>

Good. Thanks Kevin.

Unless others chime in arguing /for/ includehosts to be mandatory, then 
let's leave it as optional. It's worth noting that pretty well every 
example in all the docs does include it so it's very prominent in the 
documentation.

P

Smith, Kevin, (R&D) VF-Group wrote:
>  >> 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 11:34:43 GMT

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