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

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

From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@uninsubria.it>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 00:49:07 +0100
Message-ID: <c730b1640901051549i7e934292pc23fb70907238fe4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Phil Archer" <phil@philarcher.org>
Cc: "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>

I agree with you, Phil. Probably my comment was not clear. I summarise
here the issue for those who are not aware of it.

The constraints include/excludeiripattern have been included in the
POWDER specs [1] since there existed a W3C WD proposing a pattern
syntax for URLs, namely the "access item" syntax defined by WAF [2].
So, the idea was to provide support to a possible alternative to the
IRI constraints defined in the POWDER specs. As such, this was also
meant to be a sort of built-in extension to the genuine POWDER IRI
constraints.

Since in the current WAF specs [3] the definition of the access item
syntax has been dropped, include/excludeiripattern cannot any longer
be considered  as an implementation of an existing pattern syntax, but
as constraints adopting a specific IRI pattern syntax defined in the
POWDER specs.

In conclusion, I'm not against keeping include/excludeiripattern, but
we need to rephrase the corresponding section in order to explain
which is their purpose. In other words,  the paragraph:

[[
Enabling Read Access for Web Resources [WAF] defines a method for
encoding the domains and sub-domains from which access to resources on
a given Web site should be granted or denied. The includeiripattern
and  excludeiripattern properties support this syntax directly.
]]

needs to be rewritten by saying that include/excludeiripattern are an
alternative way of denoting IRIs, specifically designed for URLs, and
to denote the domains and sub-domains to which the description
applies.

Andrea

----
[1]http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-grouping/#wild
[2]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-access-control-20080214/#access
[3]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-access-control-20080912/


On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org> wrote:
> Sorry Andrea I'm a tad confused by your comment.
>
> If we were to keep this feature then we'd just re-word it a little so as to
> remove reference to WAF - but everything else would stay the same. In other
> words, it's no more work to keep it than to drop it (except that it's not in
> the P to P-BASE XSLT, but I'm sure that can be sorted easily enough once
> Kevin has debugged the query contains bit).
>
> P
>
> Andrea Perego wrote:
>>
>> 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/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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 23:49:47 GMT

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