- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:03:23 +0000
- To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
- CC: www-archive@w3.org, "Carroll, Jeremy John" <jeremy.carroll@hp.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Continuing along the same lines ... foo.example.com/bar corresponds to bar.example.com and bar.example.com/foo corresponds to foo.example.com So that we may hope that <wdr:ResourceSet> <wdr:includeHosts>bar.example.com</wdr:includeHosts> <wdr:excludePathStartsWith>/foo</wdr:excludePathStartsWith> </wdr:ResourceSet> Would exclude resources from foo.example.com But if we think about http://foo.example.com/ alias http://bar.example.com/foo it matches the includeHosts constraint, by virtue of the second URI, and it matches the excludePathStartsWith constraint by virute of the first URI. However, any 'reasonable' implementation, would take the first URI and reject it, because it doesn't match the first constraint; and then take the second URI and reject it because it doesn't match the second constraint. Thus I am wondering whether the constraints should be seen as constraints on URIs (not on resources), with the wdr:hasScope property doing some magic relating resources to their URIs. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-powder-dr-20070925/#structure Jeremy
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 14:04:08 UTC