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

RE: Issue: XML_LANG_CLARIFY

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 16:27:27 -0700
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AMEPKEBLDJJCCDEJHAMIAEEMCOAA.ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Julian, Geoff,

Since it appears there is some agreement on this issue, could one of you
please write up, in specification language, your proposed modification to
the specification to resolve this issue?

- Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 9:15 AM
> To: WebDAV WG
> Subject: AW: Issue: XML_LANG_CLARIFY
>
>
> > 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 Wednesday, 9 May 2001 19:29:22 GMT

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