W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2007

Aligning grouping of resources in POWDER and WAF Access Control.

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 15:16:19 +0100
Message-ID: <C4B3FB61F7970A4391A5C10BAA1C3F0DBB2F3D@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

Art, Phil,

In response to a request from the WAF-WG [1] to review "Enabling Read
Access to Web Resources" [2] the TAG is concerned to ensure that there
is good alignment between your WGs wrt the specification of resource
sets.

We observe that [2] involves the specification of 'allow' and 'deny'
sets of resources (which in this case happen to be the origins of
scripted behaviours executed by user agents). There is some resonance
between [2] and POWDER work on grouping resource sets by address. We
believe that there is or should be some common interest in the
specification of such resource sets between your WGs.

Given that web masters are the likely authors of configuration
information for both script access controls (as in [2]) and for
content-labeling (a POWDER application) and that both involve making
assertions about sets of resources (allow/deny assertions v assertions
about the nature of web content) we believe that there should be at
least some conceptual coherence and ideally some syntactic coherence in
the way that both POWDER and WAF-WG approach the description of sets of
resource that are the subject of such assertions.

For example, consider the scenario in which the author of a resource
identified by http://www.sales.example.com/strategy.html wishes to allow
cross-domain access from any resource identified by an example.com URI.

Per [2], this set is specified with a pair of 'access items' as:

	http://*.example.com
	https://*.example.com

Whereas using the 'PERL regexp' based approach being considered by
POWDER (option 5 at [3]), the same set is specified as:

   ^https?://[^:/?#]+\.)*example\.com/

We think having two similar-but-different mechanisms to achieve the same
goal should be avoided if at all possible.

We would be interested to hear from you whether you think there is any
possibility of seeking considerably more alignment between the work of
your two groups, so that where their requirements overlap there is at
least cross-reference, and at best sharing of terminology, operational
semantics and perhaps even syntax.

Best regards

Stuart Williams
for W3C TAG
--
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jun/0114.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-access-control-20070618/
[3]
http://www.w3.org/blog/powder/2007/04/27/meeting_summary_26_27_april_200
7
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks
RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 14:18:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:46 GMT