Re: PROPOSED RESOLUTION (WAS Re: [Fwd: About include/excludeiripattern])

Sorry Andrea I'm a tad confused by your comment.

If we were to keep this feature then we'd just re-word it a little so as 
to remove reference to WAF - but everything else would stay the same. In 
other words, it's no more work to keep it than to drop it (except that 
it's not in the P to P-BASE XSLT, but I'm sure that can be sorted easily 
enough once Kevin has debugged the query contains bit).

P

Andrea Perego wrote:
> 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/
>>
> 
> 
> 

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

Received on Monday, 5 January 2009 16:19:29 UTC