Publishing another access-control draft

HI,

I SUGGEST WE PUBLISH  
HTTP://DEV.W3.ORG/CVSWEB/~CHECKOUT~/2006/WAF/ACCESS-CONTROL/
OVERVIEW.HTML?CONTENT-TYPE=TEXT/HTML;%20CHARSET=UTF-8  
AS A NEW WORKING DRAFT RATHER SOONER THAN LATER. MY
SUGGESTION WOULD THAT  
PEOPLE OBJECT DURING OR BEFORE THE TELCON THIS WEDNESDAY AND
IF THERE ARE  
NO OBJECTIONS WE PUBLISH AFTER THE TELCON. IT CONTAINS A LOT
OF CHANGES  
SINCE THE MAY 2006 DRAFT THAT CAN USE SOME WIDER REVIEW.
ESPECIALLY THE  
REMAINING OPEN ISSUES NEED SOME WIDER INPUT I THINK.

CHEERS,


-- 
ANNE VAN KESTEREN
<HTTP://ANNEVANKESTEREN.NL/>
<HTTP://WWW.OPERA.COM/>

On 2007-02-13 11:43:28 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> I suggest we publish 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/access-control
/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
> as a new Working Draft rather sooner than later. My
suggestion
> would that people object during or before the telcon
this
> Wednesday and if there are no objections we publish
after the
> telcon. It contains a lot of changes since the May 2006
draft
> that can use some wider review. Especially the
remaining open
> issues need some wider input I think.

This version presents the "global exceptions"
approach as,
basically, a done deal.

I'd strongly prefer the "local exceptions"
approach that I had
proposed to go into the next working draft.  Since I
understand that
you don't feel very strongly either way (and haven't seen
anyone
else chime in on this point), please change things
accordingly
before publishing the draft.

(I've sent regrets for the telco on Wednesday since I'm
attending a
project face-to-face this week.)

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlrw3.org>

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:24:29 +0100, Thomas Roessler
<tlrw3.org> wrote:
> This version presents the "global exceptions"
approach as,
> basically, a done deal.

Nothing is a done deal in a working draft, imo.


> I'd strongly prefer the "local exceptions"
approach that I had
> proposed to go into the next working draft.  Since I
understand that
> you don't feel very strongly either way (and haven't
seen anyone
> else chime in on this point), please change things
accordingly
> before publishing the draft.

Heh, you make it sound like it's simple. I'll see what I can
do. I agree  
it's slightly nicer although it does complicate the model
and increases  
the likelyhood people make mistakes (I think).


> (I've sent regrets for the telco on Wednesday since I'm
attending a
> project face-to-face this week.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren
.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

On 2007-02-13 12:39:41 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

>>This version presents the "global
exceptions" approach as,
>>basically, a done deal.

> Nothing is a done deal in a working draft, imo.

True; I phrased that badly.  What I meant was that no issue
around
it was explicitly called out.

>>I'd strongly prefer the "local exceptions"
approach that I had
>>proposed to go into the next working draft.  Since I
understand
>>that you don't feel very strongly either way (and
haven't seen
>>anyone else chime in on this point), please change
things
>>accordingly before publishing the draft.

> Heh, you make it sound like it's simple.

It is!

> I agree it's slightly nicer although it does complicate
the model
> and increases the likelyhood people make mistakes (I
think).

That's where we disagree. ;)

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlrw3.org>

ON TUE, 13 FEB 2007 13:56:57 +0100, THOMAS ROESSLER
<TLRW3.ORG> WROTE:
>> HEH, YOU MAKE IT SOUND LIKE IT'S SIMPLE.
>
> IT IS!

OK, IT WASN'T THAT HARD TO SPECIFY.  
HTTP://DEV.W3.ORG/CVSWEB/~CHECKOUT~/2006/WAF/ACCESS-CONTROL/
OVERVIEW.HTML?CONTENT-TYPE=TEXT/HTML;%20CHARSET=UTF-8  
HAS THE ROESSLER-MODEL IMPLEMENTED NOW. A FIRST ATTEMPT,
ANYWAY. 

I'LL NOW INVESTIGATE WHERE I MESSED UP...


(MY PUBLISHING REQUEST STILL STANDS, FWIW.)


-- 
ANNE VAN KESTEREN
<HTTP://ANNEVANKESTEREN.NL/>
<HTTP://WWW.OPERA.COM/>

On 2007-02-13 18:26:25 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> (My publishing request still stands, fwiw.)

I'm now happy to +1 it. ;)

Thanks,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlrw3.org>