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

RE: content type for WebDAV request/response bodies, was: [ACL] Access Control Protocol -07 submitted

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 17:10:27 -0800
To: <acl@webdav.org>, "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AMEPKEBLDJJCCDEJHAMICEOIDLAA.ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
> 1) The RFC2518 DTD has an error in the keepalive element (at
> least according to MSXML).

OK -- how *should* this element be represented in DTD language?

> 2) Example 8.1.1 in RFC2518 (response) isn't wellformed.

Which is the offending element. This looks OK to me.

> 3) Several DTD validation errors were found:
>
> 3a) in ordering of lockdiscovery child elements,
> 3b) in the examples in appendix C (which were supposed to fail).
>
> Question: so *do* we assume that child element ordering is relevant? In
> which case, the examples in RFC2518 should be fixed.

It was certainly my and Yaron's position that the ordering rules of XML
didn't apply when sending XML across the wire. That is, the ordering rules
make sense when you're doing markup of documents, but do not when you're
sending a set of protocol elements where semantically the order of arrival
is not meaningful. However, reading through RFC 2518, it appears we never
explicitly stated this. It is certainly implied in the fact that we do not
require validity, but only well formedness.  Well-formed XML does not
necessarily adhere to the ordering given in a specific DTD.

- Jim
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 20:10:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:59 GMT