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

RE: Use of attributes

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:54:12 -0700
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "DeltaV" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
The reason you describe for putting the info in attributes isn't required;
you could just have easily made the extended information children of <prop>,
next to the property name.

I don't know why the method string wasn't expressed as PCDATA, but it's fine
to invent new stuff for new situations.  Expressing props in XML is an old


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 8:40 AM
> To: DeltaV
> Subject: RE: Use of attributes
>    > From: Julian F. Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]
>    >    That could have easily been done by adding it in the form of:
>    >
>    > 	   <x:quota xmlns:D="DAV:" D:is-computed="true" />
>    > From: Clemm, Geoff
>    > 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>
> The problem is how do you declare where this new D:iscomputed
> node can appear?  Since it can appear on any property type,
> it can appear as a child of any node.  But if you have a
> D:supported-live-property node, you can declare that D:is-computed is a
> child of D:supported-live-property.  Note that this is not a
> DTD specific issue, but applies to any attempt to declare the
> syntax (e.g. XML-Schema).
>    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.
> Well, "guarantee" seems a bit strong ... I'd think at least one
> implementor
> would be aware of the ATTLIST semantics.  But I agree with your point.
> The spec should be clear, and if the ATTLIST semantics is not widely
> understood, we need to make it clear what was intended.
> Probably, the best way to go is to replace the old syntax, i.e.:
>   <D:supported-live-property-set>
>     <D:supported-live-property>
>       <D:name> <D:getcontentlanguage/> </D:name>
>     </D:supported-live-property>
>     <D:supported-live-property>
>       <D:name> <X:quota/> </D:name>
>   </supported-live-property-set>
> Note: All this got started when we encountered problems with
> D:supported-method ... those values are not conveniently
> represented as xml nodes, which let to the attribute approach.
> D:supported-live-property and D:supported-report were changed
> just to be consistent with D:supported-method.  But we could
> easily change D:supported-live-property and D:supported-report
> back, and just use attributes for D:supported-method.
> Cheers,
> Geoff
Received on Monday, 6 August 2001 16:55:19 UTC

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