Fwd: ISSUE-3: AC: does the AC syntax need to align with POWDER WG?

Phil, Anne and Jonas proposed ISSUE-3:

[[
<http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/3>
AC: does the AC syntax need to align with POWDER WG?
]]

be Closed via:

   Anne: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/ 
2007Sep/0036.html>
   Jonas: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/ 
2007Sep/0033.html> [MEMBER]

If you have any input on this proposal please send it to public- 
appformats.

FYI, the latest Editor Draft of the Enabling Read Access for Web  
Resources spec is available at:

   <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/>

Regards, AB

Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: member-appformats@w3.org
> From: "ext Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
> Date: September 20, 2007 2:16:27 PM EDT
> To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
> Cc: Web Application Formats WG <member-appformats@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-3: AC: does the AC syntax need to align with  
> POWDER WG?
>
>
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:52:16 +0200, Web Application Formats Issue  
>> Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org> wrote:
>>> ISSUE-3: AC: does the AC syntax need to align with POWDER WG?
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/3
>> Can we close this issue? I'm not sure what the purpose is of just  
>> sharing the syntax. Also, I think we more or less settled on the  
>> syntax at this point unless there are really convincing arguments  
>> for doing it otherwise (which also need to persuade implementors...).
>
> From what I understand this one is actually fixed since we now do  
> use the same syntax as them?
>
> And if not, I agree that I don't see much value in just sharing the  
> syntax.
>
> / Jonas
>

Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 11:36:56 UTC