- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:27:33 +0200
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
On Wed, 09 May 2007 21:28:12 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > In 2.1, ""deny" rules can be used by authors to deny read access from > external resources to the entire server a simple way without having to > check each individual XML resource that may have <?access-control?> > processing instructions specified." is somewhat confusing to a first time > reader because the PI hasn't yet been met. > > In fact it's still confusing to me now. I think your prepositions are all > wrong. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. I tried to clarify it. > 2.2 doesn't actually say that if the MUSTs are violated that the resource > is put in error. You mean to make it more clear to authors? Because when something is rejected is now determined by the algorithm in section 3. > In 3: "The match list and exclude list are both unordered lists of access > items." -- "the" match list? "the" exclude list? There are 3 of each! > This should probably be in the plural or something. Made the definitions plural. > Is there a difference between "terminate this algorithm" and "terminate > this algorithm (process the next list item)"? I rewrote most of this sub algorithm handling to make it much more clear (hopefully!) what needs to be done. > "user agents must grant access to the resource" can we make that a SHOULD > instead of a MUST? Makes sense, addressed. > It isn't completely clear to me what the "overall algorithm" is. The > sub-algorithms have <ol>s, maybe the overall algorithm should too? I > don't know. I put it <ol>. It probably needs some further tweaking to make it clear when it's invoked and such. > I can't really comment on the "match" algorithm because I don't know what > Request URL is supposed to be. For example, is it expected to be an > absolute URL always, or can it be relative? What does it mean for the > origin not to have a scheme? Why would you ignore the scheme if it's not > followed by "://" ? How can it not have a port? Are non-host-based- > authority schemes allowed? > > Step 9 doesn't specify the order. I tried to fix these as well. See: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/access-control/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2007 11:27:52 UTC