RE: ISSUE-20: Client and Server model [Access Control]

I don't understand why you think CR is the right time for this issue.
CR is a time to test whether the specification works and there are a WG
specific number of interoperable implementations.  That is way past the
time for doing major design decisions like whether PEP should only be
server or may be client.  If the specification changes substantially at
CR, such as changing a PEP decision, then the spec would go way back to
WD.  Perhaps a half year change to go through WD, LC, CR again?

Dave 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-appformats-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-appformats-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anne 
> van Kesteren
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:42 AM
> To: Web Application Formats Working Group WG
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-20: Client and Server model [Access Control]
> 
> 
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:48:13 +0100, Web Application Formats 
> Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> > ISSUE-20: Client and Server model [Access Control]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/
> >
> > Raised by: Arthur Barstow
> > On product: Access Control
> >
> > Issues have been raised regarding client (i.e. browser) 
> versus server  
> > aspects of the model. For example, would it better and 
> simple for the  
> > policy enforcement point to be the server rather than the 
> client, etc.
> 
> As stated earlier we should address this when go to Candidate  
> Recommendation. It seems unlikely that we get closure on this.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anne van Kesteren
> <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
> <http://www.opera.com/>
> 
>

Received on Friday, 4 January 2008 18:47:43 UTC