- From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@uninsubria.it>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:09:40 +0100
- To: "Phil Archer" <phil@philarcher.org>, "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>
This might be an option, but I see it more as a way of defining an IRI pattern syntax simpler than regular expressions. I'm not sure we can still propose include/excludeiripatterns as an example of POWDER extension, at least not referring to Unix glob patterns, which are meant for relative / absolute paths, not for IRIs. Andrea On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr> wrote: > > 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/ > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Andrea Perego Dipartimento di Informatica e Comunicazione Universita` degli Studi dell'Insubria Via Mazzini, 5 - 21100 Varese, Italy WWW: http://www.dicom.uninsubria.it/~andrea.perego/ FOAF: http://www.dicom.uninsubria.it/~andrea.perego/foaf/#me ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 5 January 2009 16:10:21 UTC