[Fwd: About include/excludeiripattern]


A long, long time ago [1], the POWDER WG had an exchange with Art 
concerning WAF Access Control. The end result was that we incorporated 
direct support for the same syntax in POWDER grouping [2], i.e.

access-item    ::= (scheme "://")? domain-pattern (":" port)? | "*" 
domain-pattern ::= domain | "*." domain

But, an eagle-eyed member of the group has spotted that the current 
draft (to which we refer) does not support this any more [3].

Do we take it that this syntax is no longer supported by your WG?



[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2007Jul/0004.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-grouping-20081114/#wild
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/access-control/#syntax

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: About include/excludeiripattern
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:12:21 +0000
Resent-From: member-powderwg@w3.org
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:11:42 +0100
From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@uninsubria.it>
To: Member POWDER <member-powderwg@w3.org>

I'm working through my PP to fix all the pending issues. I'll be
posting online a new version in the next few days.

However, I have a urgent question, concerning the constraints
include/excludeiripattern [1], i.e., those reflecting the syntax for
WAF access items. The problem is that, if you take a look at the
current WAF document we refer to in the grouping doc, i.e., [2],
besides the fact that WAF changed the former title into "Access
Control for Cross-Site Requests", the notion itself of "access item"
(and the corresponding section) has disappeared. In other words, in
[2] there's no definition of the syntax of an access item.

I've not checked thoroughly through the change logs to find out why
this has been dropped. However, [2] talks about a notion of "origin",
which seems to encompass all the stuff concerning access items, and,
for this notion, it refers to HTML 5 [3].

Does anybody have any more precise information about this? And what
about include/excludeiripattern? Are they still to be supported as
they are defined in [1] ?



Phil Archer
w. http://philarcher.org/

Received on Monday, 5 January 2009 09:33:03 UTC