W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Issue: PROP_ATTR

From: Julian F. Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 12:23:54 +0200
To: "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AFEIKENBELCNEGJFCENGOEIBDCAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Kevin Wiggen
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 6:02 PM
> To: Greg Stein; WebDAV WG
> Subject: RE: Issue: PROP_ATTR
>
>
>
> I agree with Greg et all that "attr2" needs to be stored.
>
> I believe that allowing "attr1" could lead to some interop problems, or we
> need to spec this out a little better:
>
> <D:prop>
>   <theprop attr1="foo"/>
>   <theprop attr1="bar"/>
>   <theprop attr2="fee"/>
> </D:prop>
>
> Is that legal?  Does the attribute make the property unique?  Does simply

No, it doesn't. If the language in section 4.5
(<http://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.4.5>) isn't
clear enough on that, it should be enhanced.

> the value of an attribute make it unique?  Or do we (like xmllang) simply
> store one set of attributes for a property?

Who does? RFC2518 says that xml:lang must be preserved, but it doesn't say
that there may be multiple copies of the property with different language
values (<http://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#ELEMENT_set>).

> Also how does one use Dasl with attributes on properties?
>
> I would like to see attributes on the property name not be supported.

I might agree, but not for the reasons given here.
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2001 06:24:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:55 GMT