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

Re: DTD Confusion

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:55:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200102122155.QAA03997@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

   From: "James J. Hunt" <jjh@ira.uka.de>

   The last DTD that I posted is in fact one DTD for each message packed
   together in one file.   There is a lot of common code in it.  I could
   modify it to have one common section that is included by a short message
   based DTD header for each message where it is necessary.  The only place
   where that is actually needed is if one would like to reuse set and
   friends in LABEL.  I could live with that.

OK, sounds like we're all set there then.

   There are two places in the protocol where I would like to clean up a
   bit and it is not just a DTD issue.  One is that handling of error
   return information.  I would like a top level error element as given at
   the end of my DTD proposal.

That's OK with me.  For everyone who hasn't read James' DTD, this just
says that you get back:
 <DAV:error> <DAV:some-error-element/> </DAV:error>
I assume this is to allow you to return multiple error elements?

Any objections?

   The second is the way the expand-property
   report sends information.  I do not want to nest prop elements in prop
   elements.  I is just not very clean.  I made a suggestion to this effect,
   but there was almost not comment on it.

I think I'll need more than "not very clean".  The mechanism in the
current protocol is not order sensitive (i.e. does not require that a
particular element type be "first"), which is better for
extensibility.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Monday, 12 February 2001 16:57:05 GMT

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