On Sep 15, 2009, at 21:12 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
I do not think they are so different.
Frederick is correct in his interpretation of the intent of the
specification: they are meant to be different.
feature points to anything, we can still build the interpretation.
But it is meant and
On Sep 7, 2009, at 15:11 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
is pretty simple, logical, and gets the job done for most use cases.
The above is not the case e.g. for mailto: or tel:, specifically if
you want to be more specific/selective with the additional arguments
(a la subdomains).
There is a
On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:00 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
As stated in my original email, one of the targets is that access
is not an obstacle for DAP.
The design was based on:
- not restricting DAP's ability to define a security policy
- enabling boolean access to URIs
- having pattern matching
On Sep 10, 2009, at 15:00 , Frederick Hirsch wrote:
Is the fundamental difference of feature and access the following:
feature - API set expected to be possibly used
access - network resource to be accessed.
Exactly. I think that part of the confusion stems from the different
uses of URIs.
: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com
-Original Message-
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@berjon.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:41 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: Marcos Caceres; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [WARP] Last Call comments
-Original Message-
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@berjon.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:27 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: Marcos Caceres; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [WARP] Last Call comments (1)
On Sep 7, 2009, at 15:11 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
is pretty simple, logical
-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com
-Original Message-
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@berjon.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:43 PM
To: Frederick Hirsch
Cc: Marcin Hanclik; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [WARP] Last Call comments (1
: Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:41 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: Marcos Caceres; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [WARP] Last Call comments (1)
On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:00 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
As stated in my original email, one of the targets is that access
is not an obstacle for DAP.
The design
: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com
-Original Message-
From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:frederick.hir...@nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 3:01 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: Frederick Hirsch; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [WARP] Last Call comments (1)
Is the fundamental difference
Is the fundamental difference of feature and access the following:
feature - API set expected to be possibly used
access - network resource to be accessed.
if so, doesn't feature imply both the loading and permission to access
a library, whereas access is about accessing a resource.
if this
: Re: [WARP] Last Call comments (1)
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
is pretty simple, logical, and gets the job done for most use cases.
The above is not the case e.g. for mailto: or tel:, specifically if you want
to be more specific/selective with the additional arguments (a la
PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [WARP] Last Call comments (1)
Hi Marcin,
I tried to respond to this email, but in all honesty, I can't follow
your line of argumentation. Maybe you can list your main points as a
list (sorry, I'm a bit simple)...
From what I got, I
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
What you did in 192 characters, the access element does in 52.
That is the point of the access element: to make these kind of
annoying declarations easy to write.
I do not think that the conciseness is the main driver of this aspect of the
config.xml.
Hi Marcos,
is pretty simple, logical, and gets the job done for most use cases.
The above is not the case e.g. for mailto: or tel:, specifically if you want to
be more specific/selective with the additional arguments (a la subdomains).
It is also not the case for the distinction between
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
is pretty simple, logical, and gets the job done for most use cases.
The above is not the case e.g. for mailto: or tel:, specifically if you want to
be more specific/selective with the additional arguments (a la subdomains).
Access requests for those are
Hi Marcin,
I tried to respond to this email, but in all honesty, I can't follow
your line of argumentation. Maybe you can list your main points as a
list (sorry, I'm a bit simple)...
From what I got, I agree that WARP is over reaching: It does not
address the requirements it lists from the
16 matches
Mail list logo
