- From: Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:16:37 +0200
- To: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
- Cc: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
why undo work that we have already done? we can simply remove the
reference and call them Unix glob patterns or s'thing like that.
s
On Mon Jan 5 11:03:48 2009 Phil Archer said:
> Given the exchange below, I'd like to a) thank Andrea for his diligence
> in spotting this, and b) make the rather obvious proposal that we:
>
> Remove the in/excludeiripattern IRI constraint from POWDER (it's
> mentioned in the grouping and formal docs).
>
> OK?
>
> Phil.
>
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:32:13 +0100, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
>> wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> My apologies for not notifying your WG, I forgot there was a
>> dependency. After thinking through the use cases we are designing for,
>> we decided upon a much simpler model. I realize this new model not work
>> well for you and hope you can find something that does (maybe by simply
>> copying our old syntax).
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>
> --
> Phil Archer
> w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Monday, 5 January 2009 15:17:21 UTC