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

AW: Issue: XML_LANG_CLARIFY

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:14:44 +0200
To: "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMEPDCCAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> Von: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]Im Auftrag von Clemm, Geoff
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. April 2001 17:59
> An: WebDAV WG
> Betreff: RE: Issue: XML_LANG_CLARIFY
>
>
>    From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
>
>    1) If you don't validate (and although the RFC shows DTD
> fragments, they
>    can't be used for validation), any attribute can appear on any element.
> It's
>    up the RFC to define what this means.
>
> The RFC is equally capable of declaring that an attribute on a
> paricular element type is syntactically illegal.  Whether or not the
> XML "DTD validates" is not especially relevant or interesting (we have
> many syntactic constraints in the protocol that cannot be expressed
> conveniently in DTD form).

I agree. I think this is what I said as well :-)

>    2) The current RFC current defines that xml:lang is to be persisted, no
>    matter whether it appears on the property element or an ancestor.
>
> To be precise, RFC 2518 states:
>
>    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.
>
> This statement does not specify whether an xml:lang attribute
> can appear in the DAV:prop element, or just in the actual property
> value elements.  In other words, a statement of the form "no
> attributes can be placed on a DAV:prop element" would not conflict
> with this language in RFC 2518.

Yes. The current wording isn't very precise because if refer's to the
property's value without having defined what the property value actually is.
However, I would claim that if intent was to say that xml:lang should be
persisted only for child elements of the property element, this would have
been redundant anyway (I thought we agree that attributes of child elements
of the property element need to be persisted anyway, right?).

>    3) Actually, I would prefer to state that *any* attribute can appear on
> the
>    property element, and that they all should be persisted. It makes the
> spec
>    easier and would conform with Canonical XML.
>
> Just to make sure we aren't talking past each other, I have very
> different opinions on what we should allow on the DAV:prop element (I
> prefer no attributes, but can live with "only xml:lang" or "only
> attributes in the xml namespace"), and what we allow on the property
> elements, e.g. DAV:displayname, DAV:getcontentlength, etc. (I prefer
> all attributes allowed, and must be maintained by the server).

> So when you say "any attribute can appear on a property element", if
> you are referring to elements like "DAV:displayname", I agree with
> you, but if you are referring to the DAV:prop element, I disagree.
> And the spec is free to disallow attributes on DAV:prop but allow
> attributes on elements like DAV:displayname.

Seems that after all we agree :-)
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2001 12:15:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:56 GMT