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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:43:58 +1100
Cc: "Arthur Barstow" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Message-Id: <41D1DBEB-1257-4880-8D0A-5BADA2BC7186@yahoo-inc.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>

1) You'll have to change it anyway if you want to support extensions.  
I haven't seen a discussion of this yet.

2) Introducing new syntactic constructs requires people to write new  
parsers for them, which can also introduce errors.

I'm surprised that implementers hadn't already found the problems I  
pointed out; that suggests there may be other issues that they haven't  
seen. Reusing an existing syntax that's widely used avoids syntactic  
problems, leaving the WG to concentrate on the semantics which are in  
their domain of expertise.


On 29/01/2008, at 11:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:24:18 +0100, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com 
> > wrote:
>> I also haven't seen any rationale behind keeping the header as it is.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Jan/ 
> 0273.html
>
> Making changes increases the risk for introducing errors. I'd like  
> to restrict changes to those that substantially improve the  
> situation, such as using delta-seconds instead of HTTP-date.
>
>
> -- 
> Anne van Kesteren
> <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
> <http://www.opera.com/>

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 00:44:54 UTC

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