- From: Smith, Kevin, \(R&D\) VF-Group <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:26:04 +0200
- To: "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>, "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>
>> You're saying that we already need a 2-step validation and that we can therefore check that an IRI set definition is not empty without having to mandate <includehosts>? That would be good I think. Exactly, so -1 from me for a mandatory includehosts. -----Original Message----- From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer Sent: 05 June 2008 12:21 To: Public POWDER Subject: Re: includehosts mandatory? Smith, Kevin, (R&D) VF-Group wrote: > Hi Phil, > > My understanding was that if we support other identifiers (ISAN, ISBN) > etc. then <includehost>s would not be relevant for those, only for > those retrievable over the Web. True - but POWDER-BASE only has <in/excluderegex> with no other child elements allowed for <iriset>. Things like ISAN numbers would exist in a a format that is not POWDER but that can be transformed into POWDER-BASE. Therefore the question about <includehosts> only applies specifically to POWDER and not BASE or S. > > NB a thought to park for now: so you could describe the > characteristics of a bunch of SMTP addresses using POWDER, couldn't > you? That seems quite powerful. Yes indeed, and POWDER-BASE can do that, therefore conformant POWDER Processors can do that which is, I think, at the heart of the Stasinos plan. > >>> It gives us a way to ensure syntactically that an IRI set is never > empty > It seems like we will need two-step validation due to some features > absent in XML Schema, so this could be picked up by an additional > check (we've mentioned using XSLT as a way to enforce business rules, > and also to create a neat HTML page teling you what the DR says in > plain English). You're saying that we already need a 2-step validation and that we can therefore check that an IRI set definition is not empty without having to mandate <includehosts>? That would be good I think. P
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 11:27:05 UTC