- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:35:55 -0400
- To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
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