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

Hopefully querycontains should be fixed within the hour - I hadn't
realised that XSLT 2 was not entirely backward compatible with 1.0!

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Phil Archer
Sent: 06 January 2009 09:52
To: Andrea Perego
Cc: Public POWDER
Subject: Re: PROPOSED RESOLUTION (WAS Re: [Fwd: About

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


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


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.


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]
> [2]
> [3]
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Phil Archer <>
>> 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
>> 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 
>>> <> 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 
>>>>>> <>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> Do we take it that this syntax is no longer supported by your
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> .html [2] 
>>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>> 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.
>> --
>> Phil Archer
>> w.

Phil Archer

Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 10:01:23 UTC