W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > January 2009

PROPOSED RESOLUTION (WAS Re: [Fwd: About include/excludeiripattern])

From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:03:48 +0000
Message-ID: <4961E914.1000603@philarcher.org>
To: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>

Given the exchange below, I'd like to a) thank Andrea for his diligence 
in spotting this, and b) make the rather obvious proposal that we:

Remove the in/excludeiripattern IRI constraint from POWDER (it's 
mentioned in the grouping and formal docs).

OK?

Phil.

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:32:13 +0100, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org> 
> wrote:
>> A long, long time ago [1], the POWDER WG had an exchange with Art 
>> concerning WAF Access Control. The end result was that we incorporated 
>> direct support for the same syntax in POWDER grouping [2], i.e.
>>
>> access-item    ::= (scheme "://")? domain-pattern (":" port)? | "*" 
>> domain-pattern ::= domain | "*." domain
>>
>> But, an eagle-eyed member of the group has spotted that the current 
>> draft (to which we refer) does not support this any more [3].
>>
>> Do we take it that this syntax is no longer supported by your WG?
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2007Jul/0004.html
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-grouping-20081114/#wild
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/access-control/#syntax
> 
> My apologies for not notifying your WG, I forgot there was a dependency. 
> After thinking through the use cases we are designing for, we decided 
> upon a much simpler model. I realize this new model not work well for 
> you and hope you can find something that does (maybe by simply copying 
> our old syntax).
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> 

-- 
Phil Archer
w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Monday, 5 January 2009 11:04:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:14 GMT