ssage-
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 (1)
On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:00 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
> As stated in my original email, one of the t
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)
On Sep 10, 2009, at 15:00 , Freder
l/draft-wilde-sms-uri-00#section-2.4
Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +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, 20
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 (1)
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. F
On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:00 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
As stated in my original email, one of the targets is that
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 that cov
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 majo
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.
points to anything, we can still build the interpretation.
But it is meant and intended
+49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: 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 t
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
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
Re 99% fulfillment of the needs:
As stated in my original email, one of the targets is that is not an
obstacle for DAP.
It is currently undefined how the related access control will be done and we would
probably want to avoid the situation that is deprecate
cin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com
-Original Message-
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marc...@opera.com]
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 3:37 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: pub
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 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 progra
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.
In
nt: Friday, September 04, 2009 5:04 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
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 Widget
Hi All,
Here are a couple of the Last Call comments to WARP LCWD [1].
They were already partially presented in my emails [2] and [3].
The comments below are more of architectural nature than just editorial fixes.
That is why the arguments together with the derived understanding are followed
by t
18 matches
Mail list logo
