W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Anomaly in the DAV:prop element usage

From: Kaelin Colclasure <kaelin@everest.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:56:26 -0800
Message-ID: <028a01bf58a1$a4f98c60$0201a8c0@everest.com>
To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 3:08 PM
Subject: Anomaly in the DAV:prop element usage

> In rfc2518, the example of propfind in 8.1.1 issues a PROPFIND
> request with a DAV:prop element of the form:
>      <D:prop xmlns:R="http://www.foo.bar/boxschema/">
>           <R:bigbox/>
>           <R:author/>
>           <R:DingALing/>
>           <R:Random/>
>      </D:prop>
> It is very likely that this violates at least some of the element
> definitions for R:bigbox, R:author, R:DingALing, and R:Random.
> I have gone to some trouble to avoid this kind of element definition
> violation in the versioning spec, but since it didn't bother the
> authors of 2518, should I not let it bother me?  As was pointed out
> in an earlier thread, there are other reasons why WebDAV XML will be
> rejected by validating parsers ...

The use of a validating parser makes little sense in the context of
WebDAV properties -- because it is intended to expose a storage mechnism
for arbitrary element definitions (in the form of property values),
which themselves may or may not have a defined DTD or schema somewhere.

Is the versioning specification defining a similar mechanism whereby
arbitrarily defined elements would need to be incorporated? If not,
then indeed you should be sensitive to the requirements of validation.
But if so, the same argument stated above for property values applies.

-- Kaelin
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2000 19:00:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:21 UTC