Thanks very much Art, this is very good timing.
I was looking for this the other day as I was adding relevant text to
our doc - I will make sure we are exactly in line before our next draft
is published. I'm sure we are fully aligned in terms of meaning but the
POWDER doc will benefit from the added precision in the AC doc.
I'll be in touch soon as we're hoping to go for LC on our doc
imminently, so contact with you is clearly critical before then.
Phil.
Arthur Barstow wrote:
Phil, Anne and Jonas proposed ISSUE-3:
[[
<http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/3>
AC: does the AC syntax need to align with POWDER WG?
]]
be Closed via:
Anne:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Sep/0036.html>
Jonas:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/2007Sep/0033.html>
[MEMBER]
If you have any input on this proposal please send it to public-appformats.
FYI, the latest Editor Draft of the Enabling Read Access for Web
Resources spec is available at:
<http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/>
Regards, AB
Begin forwarded message:
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "ext Jonas Sicking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: September 20, 2007 2:16:27 PM EDT
To: Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Web Application Formats WG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ISSUE-3: AC: does the AC syntax need to align with POWDER
WG?
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:52:16 +0200, Web Application Formats Issue
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ISSUE-3: AC: does the AC syntax need to align with POWDER WG?
http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/3
Can we close this issue? I'm not sure what the purpose is of just
sharing the syntax. Also, I think we more or less settled on the
syntax at this point unless there are really convincing arguments for
doing it otherwise (which also need to persuade implementors...).
From what I understand this one is actually fixed since we now do use
the same syntax as them?
And if not, I agree that I don't see much value in just sharing the
syntax.
/ Jonas
