W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > October 2008

Re: what to make external (ISSUE-78)

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 02:28:00 -0400
To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Cc: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20081007022800.4819b185@kiferserv>



On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:34:47 -0400
Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> At the F2F we had a lengthy but ultimately inconclusive discussion on what to 
> allow in an external call:
> 
> 1) ATOM
> 2) ATOMIC
> 3) ATOM | FRAME
> 
> In a straw poll, one person objected to each choice, and there were 3, 6, and 2 
> people resp. who preferred each choice.

I remember that csma did retract his objections to (3).


> While more people prefer choice 2, it would require re-doing last call.  1&3 
> would not, as 1 is covered by external frames being at-risk, and 3 is the way 
> the spec reads now.

I think we should do what is right and the LC consideration is not very
important, if the change is relatively simple (which is what will be in this
case).

I think the right thing to do is Atomic-Equal|Frame

Why minus Equal? In principle equality does not matter here, but one should
realize that External(a=b) does not imply a=b. So, I am afraid that some people
will be confused. But maybe this is a non-issue.

I think the LC thing will need to be redone anyway, because of the problem with
the External primitive, which we discussed: it should really have the remote
site's IRI as an additional argument.


	--michael  


> Let's try and come to some sort of closure by email.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2008 06:28:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:55 GMT