petname refinement RE: Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2008-04-30

Requested after discussion at a meeting, and no subsequent discussion on 
the email list. I declare consensus. 

Anil, please update the spec. I'll create an action for you. 




From:
"Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com>
To:
Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
Cc:
"public-wsc-wg@w3.org" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Date:
05/06/2008 02:38 PM
Subject:
RE: Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2008-04-30




Hi Mez,

I was still in China, after WWW 2008, last week and so wasn't available to 
respond your pleadings to complete ACTION-407. Rather than close this one 
out without action, I think we can complete it.

> 5) Action items closed due to inactivity
> [pending review] ACTION-407: Tyler Close to Refine petname proposal in 
light of 2008-03-19 call's
> discussion - due 2008-03-26

As I recall, ACTION-407 was asking for text to address Stephen Farell's 
point that there needed to be language saying that the petname 
presentation must be distinguished from presentation of other names. I 
suggest the paragraph that currently says:

"Presentation of a petname MUST support renaming and deleting of a petname 
binding."

Be expanded to something like:

"Presentation of a petname MUST be distinguished from presentation of 
other names to enable discrimination between a user chosen petname and a 
name chosen by another party, or for another purpose. This presentation 
MUST also support renaming and deleting of a petname binding."

I guess the best we could do for conformance testing of the above 
requirement is checking that no other kind of name in the presentation has 
exactly the same presentation as a petname.

--Tyler