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

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

From: Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:30:17 +0200
To: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@uninsubria.it>
Cc: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090105163017.GJ3160@iit.demokritos.gr>

Hi Andrea.

why does it matter what they were *meant* for when they were designed
almost 40 years ago? by now Unix globs are just a pattern syntax.

BTW I just checked and there is a normative definition,
see http://www.unix.org/single_unix_specification/
which is an IEEE standard. I cannot point to the relevant part directly
because you need to register to access it, but it is
in the XCU part, Chpater 2, Sect 13 "Pattern Matching Notation"

s


On Mon Jan  5 17:09:40 2009 Andrea Perego said:

> 
> This might be an option, but I see it more as a way of defining an IRI
> pattern syntax simpler than regular expressions. I'm not sure we can
> still propose include/excludeiripatterns as an example of POWDER
> extension, at least not referring to Unix glob patterns, which are
> meant for relative / absolute paths, not for IRIs.
> 
> Andrea
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Stasinos Konstantopoulos
> <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr> wrote:
> >
> > why undo work that we have already done? we can simply remove the
> > reference and call them Unix glob patterns or s'thing like that.
> >
> > s
> >
> >
> > On Mon Jan  5 11:03:48 2009 Phil Archer said:
> >
> >> 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/
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andrea Perego
> Dipartimento di Informatica e Comunicazione
> Universita` degli Studi dell'Insubria
> Via Mazzini, 5 - 21100 Varese, Italy
> WWW:  http://www.dicom.uninsubria.it/~andrea.perego/
> FOAF: http://www.dicom.uninsubria.it/~andrea.perego/foaf/#me
> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 5 January 2009 16:31:06 GMT

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