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 01:54:31 +0100
Message-ID: <c730b1640901051654g53a64aau1d658daa20113350@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>

I was just pointing out that the pattern syntax used by
include/excludeiripattern is not the one of Unix globs, where also the
wildcard * has a different meaning.

Andrea


On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Stasinos Konstantopoulos
<konstant@iit.demokritos.gr> wrote:
> 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 Tuesday, 6 January 2009 00:55:12 GMT

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