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

Re: unclarity about xml:lang position

From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:26:16 -0800
Message-ID: <365381C8.3FCAB27D@lyra.org>
To: Jim Davis <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>
CC: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Jim Davis wrote:
> 
> At 12:48 PM 11/18/98 PST, Yaron Goland wrote:
> 
> Maybe I'm the one who is slow. It appears that you agree that xml:lang may
> appear anywhere in the request body.  Right?
> 
> It further appears you disagree that the DAV spec is unclear.  I say it is,
> because I know of at least one person who read it and misinterpreted it.

Read: Greg

:-)

> The spec says, I quote:
> 
> "Language tagging information in the
> property's value (in the "xml:lang" attribute, if present) MUST be
> persistently stored along with the property, and MUST be subsequently
> retrievable using PROPFIND."
> 
> and this led the implementor to conclude the xml:lang has to be in the
> VALUE in particular (as opposed to appearing in any position governing the
> value.).
> I can understand how he might take this position.  It's wrong, but I
> understand it.

I've been concentrating on the WebDAV spec and am not as fully versed
with XML as I should be. There have been a couple other XML issues that
I missed (e.g. can the server imply a default namespace, or must the
client always specify it explicitly, and the single vs double quote
issue).

> I say that it sufficies to show unclarity if even one implementor
> misunderstood the spec.  (I'm not talking about a casual, clueless reader.
> I'm talking about a person skilled enough to implement WebDAV.)

Thanx :-) ... the issue is that a WebDAV implementor also needs to be
*fully* versed in the XML specification(s). I'd also state that you must
be intimately familiar with the HTTP/1.1 spec and the URL
specifications. It is quite a pile of stuff to grok and pull together in
your head :-)

> ...
> Let me put it clearly.  Do you (or anyone else) OBJECT to adding to spec
> language such as Jim W proposed:
> 
> "Language tagging information
> in the property's value, or with scope that affects XML elements in the
> property's value (following scoping rules for the "xml:lang" attribute, if
> present) MUST ..."

Not from me, although I think it could be useful to add a section on the
Working Group home page that details the other RFCs and Drafts that a
person should be familiar with. (i.e. pull out the references section
and list them as "required reading" on the WG page)

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 1998 21:25:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:48 GMT