W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: WebDAV/DeltaV Interoperability and XML Validation

From: James J. Hunt <jjh@allerton.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 00:50:43 +0000
Message-ID: <3A7F4A63.A8BB6E75@allerton.de>
To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
CC: jjh@ira.uka.de, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Dear Geoff,

"Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote:

>    From: "James J. Hunt" <jjh@allerton.de>
>
>    The reasons for the concern over tags that are used both as empty
>    tags and as tag pairs (with or without content) were problems with
>    a earlier version of an XML parser that had problems with combining
>    both form and the following quote from the XML specification.
>
> I couldn't find any following quote ... did I miss it?
>
>    For interoperability, the empty-element tag should be used, and
>    should only be used, for elements which are declared EMPTY.
>
> I don't remember seeing that in the XML spec.  Which section is
> that from?

It is in section "3.1 Start-Tags, End-Tags, and Empty-Element Tags" under
the header "Tags for Empty Elements".

>
>
>    Additionally, using tags both requires the use of ANY for dead
>    properties.  The current XML parser from sun can handle them, so I
>    can live with them.
>
> Does that mean that you are OK with a property element being
> optionally empty?
>

Given the above quote, I am not particularly happy with it, but I can
live with it.  The main problem I have is that any application can define
a new tags for a dead property and use it in prop.  This means
that prop can only be defined as any.  If we had a dead property element,
I would be happier:

       <!ELEMENT dead-prop ANY>
        <!ATTLIST dead-prop name CDATA #REQUIRED>

That way, I could say useful things about structuring property in DTDs.

Sincerely,
James
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 18:51:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:40 GMT