Re: [OK?] Re: Comments on SPARQL protocol document

Kendall,

I've been sitting on your messages for some while, and still haven't found time
to refresh my position.  Based on your direct responses I'll say that, unless I
do actually come back with any further comments, that you have indeed been
responsive to my comments concerning:
  over-prescriptivity
  generation of warnings
  spoofed server responses

#g
--

Kendall Clark wrote:
> 
> On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:29 PM, Kendall Clark wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Sep 16, 2005, at 9:31 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>> I would probably focus any such suggestions on security mechanisms,
>>> and leave the policy specification/decision mechanisms to be
>>> application-dependent.
>>
>> The latest editor's draft of the protocol spec removes all privacy
>> policy discussion. Is that responsive to yr comments about
>> over-prescriptivity?
> 
> Oops, sorry, Graham, I should have included a link:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/
> 
> Cheers,
> Kendall
> 
> 

-- 
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact