RE: Namespace of attributes in DAV:property element

What about John's particular question ... should we modify 3253 in
the next revision to state that the "name" and "namespace" attributes
are in the DAV: namespace, and then modify the example in 3.8.1
to reflect this?  If there aren't many implementations yet of the
DAV:expand-property report, we could get this change publicized now,
to minimize interoperability issues in the future.

I could go either way on this, but just to get the voting started,
I'll vote, yes, we should make this change.

Cheers,
Geoff 

ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org wrote on 07/09/2003 04:01:18 PM:

> 
> I agree that this should be added to the issues list (basically, 
RFC3253bis
> should clarify the role of the DTD segments, just like what we're doing 
with
> the other news specs right now).
> 
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of John R Vasta
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 9:42 PM
> > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> > Subject: Namespace of attributes in DAV:property element
> >
> >
> >
> > In RFC 3253, the DTD for the DAV:property element in the
> > DAV:expand-property report is
> >
> > <!ELEMENT property (property*)>
> > <!ATTLIST property name NMTOKEN #REQUIRED>
> > name value: a property element type
> > <!ATTLIST property namespace NMTOKEN "DAV:">
> > namespace value: an XML namespace
> >
> > Since all element names defined by the protocol are understood to be 
in
> > the DAV: namespace, I would assume that attributes would be too, 
except
> > that the example in section 3.8.1 uses the "name" attribute without a
> > namespace. Was that really the intent, and if so, wouldn't it be 
better,
> > or at least a little more consistent, to put the attributes in the 
DAV:
> > namespace?
> >
> > In any case, I think this needs to be clarified, since the DTDs do not
> > explicitly define namespaces.
> >
> > John Vasta
> >
> >
>

Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 17:39:27 UTC