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

Re: DTD Confusion

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:51:25 -0500
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7AC2BB1F.7AD34C16-ON852569EE.0013D610@raleigh.ibm.com>
Excellent suggestion Geoff! I couldn't agree more. However, this is really 
a WebDAV issue too, so the WebDAV working group should get involved. If 
they aren't interested in providing DTDs, then there probably isn't much 
point in Delta-V doing providing a partial set. Also note that having the 
DTDs should never require clients or servers to use them. They won't help 
formalize the extensions either. Personally I'm more interested in getting 
the semantics understood and formalized. DTDs can't do this, they only do 
structure. A good, complete object model, including behavior, state 
models, and/or interaction diatrams (or collaboration graphs depending on 
your preference) would be much more useful.

"Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Sent by: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
02/08/2001 10:03 PM

        To:     ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: DTD Confusion


A compromise suggestion for those interested in DTD's:

Each of the WebDAV messages are a separate XML document.
If you design a separate DTD for each WebDAV message type
(i.e. one for a PROPFIND request, one for a PROPFIND response,
one for a CHECKIN request, etc.), I believe you will find
that all the anomalies disappear.  In addition,
I believe this will produce a set of much more manageable,
extensible DTD's than would be provided by trying to
amass all WebDAV DTD information into one massive DTD.

Received on Thursday, 8 February 2001 22:51:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:46 UTC