W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 1997

minor questions and quibbles on V4 spec

From: Jim Davis <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 19:52:06 PDT
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971019195206.007f7100@mailback.parc.xerox.com>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
2.1.1 Shouldn't this cite RDF as a metadata standard?


2.6.6. Example

Either I don't understand the XML Namespace processing instruction, or the
example is wrong.  It seems to me that the Link, src, and dst elements need
a D: prefix.  (Or does XML have a lexical scope for providing a "default"
namespace, so that Link within D:Prop is taken to be D:Link?  If so, this
should be explicitly documented, because it's an obscure feature.

Likewise for the example in 2.8.3.6

Also, either I don't understand the description of Link, or there's a bug
here.  The values for Link are 1*Src and 1*Dst, it does not say that random
other elements (in this case F:ProjFiles) are allowed.

2.8.4 PUT

I don't understand the language here.  I can't see from what's written here
why a PUT could not work for a property.  A GET returns text/xml specifying
the name and value.  So if I did a PUT that contained a name and value,
what would the problem be?  Seems like PUT would be very convenient, so why
outlaw it?  I'm sure there's a good reason, but I can't guess it from the
spec.

2.8.5.4 PropFindResult

The purpose mentions a SEARCH request, it should be PROPFIND Also the
example uses the PROPFIND element not PropFIndResult.

3.10.6.1

In the example is the HREF for the Namespace PI *really* supposed to be
Shttp:?  If there's a reason to need to use SHTTP here, what is it?
Otherwise it's just a confusing distraction.

Minor notational inconsistency. At different places in the document listing
reply codes, the  descriptive strings are written in three different ways: 
 * in parenthesis (e.g. 3.10.5) (possibly followed by a hyphen)
 * in string quotes (e.g. 5.2.7)
 * with no delimiter other than a hyphen
This is really trivial I know but it makes the document just ever so
slightly harder to follow.

Finally, is case significant in XML?  I hope not, because some elements are
used as if was not, for example "Level".  Even if case is not significant,
the document should be written as if it were.  (And, as I mentioned in a
previous letter, we should use one consistent choice for writing elements
whose names are compounds, e.g. MultiResponse.)

Best regards


------------------------------------
http://www.parc.xerox.com/jdavis/
650-812-4301
Received on Sunday, 19 October 1997 22:53:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:44 GMT