W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > January 2008

RE: ISSUE 19: Requirements and Usage Scenarios document

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:28:20 -0800
Message-ID: <BEBB9CBE66B372469E93FFDE3EDC493E0145311F@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>

Hi Art,

I've added those into the reqs doc.  I'll send a separate note to the WG
with links to the updated doc.  But I personally find them a bit
"skimpy" on details.  It's more of a skeleton of a problem/solution
space.  I'd like to see how some of the fundamental questions can be
answered using the usage scenarios.  JSONRequest, Client as PEP, single
file update, and other issues aren't clearly called out as constraints.
For example, Jonas raised the question an interesting point in an email
about blacklisting, "I agree that the whitelisting/blacklisting feature
does not add that much value compared to the simple "*" case. However I
do think especially whitelisting does add some value, and in fact the
spec that access-control originated from had that as requirement. "  

I support Jon's comments that roughly mean we need detailed use cases.
I liked his start and I'd be glad to try to incorporate that style into
the document, but I thought that would exceed my editorial mandate
without WG approval..

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:18 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: WAF WG (public)
> Subject: Re: ISSUE 19: Requirements and Usage Scenarios document
> 
> Dave,
> 
> Regarding Use Cases, I believe the first document that 
> identified and described the UCs in scope for this spec is 
> the one Brad Porter created for the 27 April 2006 Project 
> Review conducted by the W3C Team:
> 
>   <http://www.w3.org/2006/04/27-access-control/Overview.html>
> 
> Note the above is Member-confidential and today I asked Brad 
> to make it Public. Having said that, I don't believe there is 
> anything confidential regarding the UCs themselves: Voice 
> Browser, XBL2 and XHR).
> 
> I also described the three main UCs in my WAF WG presentations at
> WWW2006 [WAF-2006] and WWW2007 [WAF-2007]. I don't think 
> either of these presos contains new information regarding the 
> UCs but I wanted to mention them to provide some historical 
> context on the scope of the spec vis-a-vis the UCs.
> 
> Regards, Art Barstow
> ---
> 
> [WAF-2006] <http://www.w3.org/2006/Talks/0524-www-WAF.pdf>
> [WAF-2007] <http://www.w3.org/2007/Talks/WWW2007-WAF-May-09.pdf>
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 8, 2008, at 7:04 PM, ext David Orchard wrote:
> 
> > Art suggested that I could do a bit of spec grunt work on 
> requirements 
> > document so I put some pen to paper.  I've made a stab at 
> creating a 
> > requirements/usage scenarios document based upon Ian's 
> requirements.  
> > I've checked it into the waf access-control cvs dir, but I 
> don't think 
> > I have permissions to make the files world readable.  
> Hence, I've sent 
> > to www-archive at http:// 
> > lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jan/0010.html
> > The HTML is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/
> > 2008Jan/att-0010/AccessControl-Requirements-20070108.html
> >
> > I hope this helps the working group and I'm glad to continue or not 
> > continue work on the document as the WG sees fit.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dave
> >
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 23:33:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:56:21 UTC