- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:59:12 +0100
- To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:49:51 +0100, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: > 4. Discussion of "Proposal for a way to avoid a round-trip on every POST > when dealing with large numbers of URIs" and the subsequent follow-ups: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Jan/0327.html I don't think that discussing this during the teleconference will be productive use of the WG's time. I'd request everyone to study the draft text and examples on this matter in http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/#cross-site1 and raise questions on the list as appropriate. If we do want to discuss this during the teleconference I'd like to hear what the goal of discussing this during the teleconference is how likely it is that the discussion will be minuted accurately. > 5. Issue #20 (Client and Server model) discussion: I have the same problems with this topic. > 6. Issue #21 (What is the Security Model for the access-control spec?) > discussion: > > <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/21> > > Is the text in the latest ED sufficient; if no, what is needed? This question has been open for several weeks and I haven't seen any new e-mails. Why does this qualify for teleconference time? > 7. Issue #22 (The AC4CSR spec and "webarch"): > > <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/22> Same concern as with 6. > 8. Plan for next publication It seems this should be much higher up in the agenda. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 15:55:44 UTC