Re: [access-control] syntax is still suboptimal?

See:
   <http://www.w3.org/mid/0E05F848-015D-4676-8172-A315FE0EC854@yahoo-inc.com 
 >

Anne responded in
   <http://www.w3.org/mid/op.t5fhu5kn64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

but I don't think that moved us forward; I wasn't suggesting we reuse  
the PI syntax, and figuring out an extensibility story is not  
something you want to do at the last minute (in this case, if you do,  
you'll have to change the syntax of the entire header to make it  
extensible).

I also haven't seen any rationale behind keeping the header as it is.


On 28/01/2008, at 1:06 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> Mark,
>
> In <http://www.w3.org/mid/8A6373E7-7211-4606-ABF5-F028416CACEE@yahoo-inc.com 
> > you asserted the syntax in the AC4CSR spec is "still suboptimal".
>
> Anne said: Didn't we fix this? If not, I'd need more detail.
> <http://www.w3.org/mid/op.t5fn0gpb64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>
>
> Hixie said: As far as I'm aware Anne has fixed all the issues that  
> were raised on the syntax; if you have any specific concerns, I'd  
> recommend reraising them.
> <http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.62.0801250159250.20219@hixie.dreamhostps.com 
> >
>
> Since I have not seen your response to Anne or Hixie (and if I  
> missed it, please send us a pointer to your response), if you  
> consider this syntax issue still open, please provide details as  
> Anne requested.
>
> Regards, Art Barstow
> ---

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot@yahoo-inc.com

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 00:24:43 UTC