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

OK, taking on board the general mood expressed in this thread, I've 
written some alternative wording for the relevant section.

See http://philarcher.org/powder/grouping/20090106.html#wild

It still credits the WAF group but the reference is now informative and 
is to the FPWD, not their latest draft.

OK??

Incidentally, it's not implemented yet in the P to P-BASE XSLT but if 
Kevin has time to fix the query contains section of it, I am reasonably 
confident that my copy, paste and edit skills will allow me to create 
the relevant angle brackets to support this.

P

Andrea Perego wrote:
> I agree with you, Phil. Probably my comment was not clear. I summarise
> here the issue for those who are not aware of it.
> 
> The constraints include/excludeiripattern have been included in the
> POWDER specs [1] since there existed a W3C WD proposing a pattern
> syntax for URLs, namely the "access item" syntax defined by WAF [2].
> So, the idea was to provide support to a possible alternative to the
> IRI constraints defined in the POWDER specs. As such, this was also
> meant to be a sort of built-in extension to the genuine POWDER IRI
> constraints.
> 
> Since in the current WAF specs [3] the definition of the access item
> syntax has been dropped, include/excludeiripattern cannot any longer
> be considered  as an implementation of an existing pattern syntax, but
> as constraints adopting a specific IRI pattern syntax defined in the
> POWDER specs.
> 
> In conclusion, I'm not against keeping include/excludeiripattern, but
> we need to rephrase the corresponding section in order to explain
> which is their purpose. In other words,  the paragraph:
> 
> [[
> Enabling Read Access for Web Resources [WAF] defines a method for
> encoding the domains and sub-domains from which access to resources on
> a given Web site should be granted or denied. The includeiripattern
> and  excludeiripattern properties support this syntax directly.
> ]]
> 
> needs to be rewritten by saying that include/excludeiripattern are an
> alternative way of denoting IRIs, specifically designed for URLs, and
> to denote the domains and sub-domains to which the description
> applies.
> 
> Andrea
> 
> ----
> [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-grouping/#wild
> [2]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-access-control-20080214/#access
> [3]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-access-control-20080912/
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org> wrote:
>> 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/
>>
> 
> 
> 

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

Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 09:53:04 UTC