W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1998

RE: comments on v7

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 22:21:43 -0800
Message-ID: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D029710FD@red-msg-59.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'ejw@ics.uci.edu'" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "'Jim Davis'" <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
7.1.2_empty	- In 7.1.2 we refer to an empty resource as undefined not
empty

I have altered the word from undefined to empty as specified below.

However, I must respectfully disagree with my learned colleague on the
matter of the DTD for LINK (I ALWAYS wanted to say that!!! =). As specified
in section 13, paragraph 1, a DAV XML parser MUST ignore any unknown XML
elements. Thus one can put any elements one wants into a link and know that
they will at worst just be ignored. Were we to change the DTD as specified
below we would be forced to put the same change into every DTD production in
our spec in order to specify what we have already specified in section 13.

		Yaron

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Whitehead [mailto:ejw@ics.uci.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 1:54 PM
To: 'Jim Davis'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Cc: Yaron Goland (E-mail)
Subject: RE: comments on v7


My apologies for taking so long to reply to this:

On Tuesday, March 10, 1998 3:44 PM, Jim Davis [SMTP:jdavis@parc.xerox.com] 
wrote:
> It's magnificent.  Just a few small points
>
> in 7.1.2 (p 19 in the PDF version) the discussion says "has an undefined
> resource type".  But I 12.0 says that this property must be defined on 
all
> resources.  So maybe 7.1.2 should instead say that the value is empty.

Good catch!  The 7th paragraph in the discussion in Section 7.1.2 should 
definitely say "has an empty resource type" instead of "has an undefined 
resource type."

> in 11.4, does the DTD for link actually allow for other tags to occur, or
> only src and dst?

The DTD states that only tags src and dst can occur.  However, it is 
certainly our intent to allow other tags to be present as well (this is 
shown in the example in Section 12.10.1).

As a result, (hopefully some XML/SGML people on the list will double-check 
this) the link element declaration should be:

<!ELEMENT link ((#PCDATA | src)+, (#PCDATA | dst)+)>

- Jim
Received on Monday, 23 March 1998 01:21:45 GMT

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