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

RE: Notes from DAV meeting

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:36:32 +0200
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMEOKCNAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

thanks for the summary.

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:21 PM
> To: Webdav WG
> Cc: minutes@ietf.org
> Subject: Notes from DAV meeting
> I haven't received the actual notes yet from the notetaker (hint,
> nudge) but
> here's what I wrote down from the WebDAV meeting last week in
> London.  Note
> these are incomplete.  Lots of progress made; various threads to
> pick up and
> continue on the list.
> Reported By Lisa Dusseault
> The slides I threw up on RFC2518 issues are available at
> http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public/dav/WebDAVWG-London.ppt.
> (WebDAV-compatible repository)

A few notes regarding the slides:

- Lock Null Resources: LOCK -> PUT is used by MS Office when doing a "save

- XML escaping: servers and clients need to process response bodies using a
conforming, namespace aware XML parser. CDATA can appear everywhere where
text content is expected (not only in properties)

- xml:lang: should stick to the definitions in Canonical XML
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315#DocSubsets): attributes in
the xml namespace are inherited from parents. I'd rather not have WebDAV
invent different rules

- allprop: recommend adopting the proposal using a <include> element as
child of <propfind>.

> DAV WG charter discussion
> -------------------------
> Some items remain in DAV WG charter, not currently dealt with: advanced
> collection, bindings, registry.
> Is there any interest in actually working on these issues?

Yes. We have implemented ordered collections and redirect references. I
think I remember of having redirect references and BINDs added to the core
protocol, is this still under consideration?

> - Source property not implemented -
> The source property is better than the Translate header (used by
> Microsoft)
> because (a) it can name a separate resource that can be
> separately addressed
> by ACLs, (b) it can include several HREFs when a dynamic page is generated
> by more than one source file.
> Suggestion from Peter (?) source property is part of the general
> problem of
> identifying releationships between resources, like bindings.  Resolution -
> bring up on the list.

We are currently supporting the Translate header, as our back end system
doesn't have a concept of different URLs for processed/unprocessed content.
Furthermore, I think the current wording on <source> is hard to understand,
in particular

- src/dst seem be the wrong way round,
- why does <source><link>.. need a <src> element? Isn't it always identical
to the resource on which the property is defined?
- the documentation on src/dst in <link> talks about a href XML element
(http://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#ELEMENT_link) which
doesn't exist

If the intention is to have <source> to be able to replace the Translate
header, this needs more work...

>  - XML 'lang' attribute placement -
> Consensus to put the lang attribute only on the 'prop' element.

Strongly disagree. This contradicts both the current wording in RFC2518, the
definitions in the XML spec itself
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-lang-tag> and specs defining
XML fragment exchange (Canonical XML:
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2001 07:36:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:23 UTC