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

RE: Use of attributes

From: Julian F. Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:38:21 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "DeltaV" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCEEAICNAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 5:22 AM
> To: DeltaV
> Subject: RE: Use of attributes
> Note: I personally don't care much one way or the other on this
> topic, so I'm just reporting on the rationale that went into the
> current choice.
> ...
>    That could have easily been done by adding it in the form of:
> 	   <x:quota xmlns:D="DAV:" D:is-computed="true" />
> For a simple extension like D:is-computed, yes, but not all
> extensions will have values that easily map into a simple string.

<x:quota><D:is-computed xmlns:D="DAV:">...</D:is-computed></x:quota>

> ...
>    Now that you mention that: this breaks reporting of live properties
>    that actually happen to be in no namespace at all (no, I wouldn't
>    suggest using things like that, but ...).
>    I assume that currently no server uses DTDs to validate. Which
>    raises the question how they should process element where the
>    attribute is missing:
>    a) assuming the property is in the DAV: namespace,
>    b) assuming it's in no namespace.
>    For consistency, I'd prefer b).
> Since (as you indicate) one should not place properties in
> the default namespace, having the default be something that
> we discourage and is likely to not occur, does not make much
> sense to me.

It would make the spec more logical.

So, among those who have implemented clients that use
supported-live-property-set -- how many of you are currently treating a
missing namespace name as being "DAV:"? I'd say that the current wording
almost *guarantees* that clients will implement this wrongly.

>    If it's a), that should be clearly stated somewhere
> The fact that the default is the DAV: namespace is specified
> in the DTD declaration in the protocol.  We could repeat that
> in text I suppose.

Yes, but the DTD as it stands can't be used for validation (1. DTDs and
namespaces don't work well together, 2. there are only DTD *fragments*).
Therefore I'd say that the DTD excepts can't be normative.

>    (and a way to report properties in "no" namespace -- such as
>    namespace="" -- should be documented).
> How else could it be represented?  Since we do not want to encourage
> anyone to place properties in the default namespace, I'd be inclined

...in no namespace...

> to leave this unstated, as a way of discouraging this bad practice.

I think this is wrong. The spec needs to be clear. Omitting something
because you want to discourage it doesn't seem to be the right approach.
Received on Monday, 6 August 2001 04:38:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:47 UTC