W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2005

RE: Processing instructions for validating that a document may access data

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:28:03 -0600
To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Cc: "James A. Larson" <jim@larson-tech.com>, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@east.sun.com>, Brad Porter <brad@tellme.com>, www-voice@w3.org
Message-Id: <1111080483.8271.277.camel@localhost>

On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 11:39 -0500, Paul Grosso wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-voicexml21-20040728/#sec-data-security 
> Jim, et al.,
> At my suggestion, the XML CG discussed this at our 
> meeting this week.  I've also done some more research
> on my own.

Thanks, Paul.

> Regardless, neither I nor anyone on the XML CG expressing 
> an opinion in this matter can see any strong technical
> argument against using a PI in this case.

Hmm...  it doesn't bother you that somebody might already
be using <?access-control ... ?> for some other purpose?

I think of PIs as kinda like comments... they belong
to authors (or perhaps local communities), not to W3C.

How should consumers figure out what specification applies
to pi <?foo ?>?
Should W3C start a registry of PI names? (heaven forbid!)

Norm, didn't we establish a good practice in webarch that
new markup should be namespace-qualified? Ah... I see
we were more conservative...

"A specification that establishes an XML vocabulary SHOULD place all
element names and global attribute names in a namespace."


Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2005 17:28:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:03:50 UTC