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

Thanks very much Art, this is very good timing.

I was looking for this the other day as I was adding relevant text to 
our doc - I will make sure we are exactly in line before our next draft 
is published. I'm sure we are fully aligned in terms of meaning but the 
POWDER doc will benefit from the added precision in the AC doc.

I'll be in touch soon as we're hoping to go for LC on our doc 
imminently, so contact with you is clearly critical before then.

Phil.

Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 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 12:46:41 UTC