W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 12:52:41 +0200
To: "Joe Orton" <joe@manyfish.co.uk>, "Webdav WG \(E-mail\)" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEKPEJAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Joe Orton
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:32 PM
> To: Webdav WG (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:19:00AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > > I just thought it was unnecessary to have to depend on yet another
> > > specification for something this simple.
> >
> > What do you mean by "depend"? We just reuse two standard attribute names
> > (xlink:href and xlink:role). That's what XLink is for -- if every
> > spec/document/protocol designer would take this position, it
> wouldn't make
> > any sense to try to come up with common vocabularies for this.
>
> I just mean it's annoying to have to go and read Yet Another XSpec to
> find out how to implement WebDAV.  If the DAV spec can explain that the
> xlink:href attribute must contain a URI-reference, and that xlink:role
> is entirely optional, then it's not really a problem.

OK, I'll try to come up with the right wording.

> ...
> > So again, why not just use the Xlink [1] compatible syntax that
> I proposed
> > back in October [2]:
> >
> >    <D:prop xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
> >      <D:source-set>
> >           <D:source xlink:href="http://foo.bar/src/main.c"
> > xlink:role="UriDescribingTheRole" xml:lang="en">source file</D:source>
> >           <D:source xlink:href="http://foo.bar/src/main.lib"
> > xlink:role="UriDescribingTheRole" xml:lang="en">library file</D:source>
> >           <D:source xlink:href="http://foo.bar/src/makefile"
> > xlink:role="UriDescribingTheRole" xml:lang="en">makefile</D:source>
> >      </D:source-set>
> >    </D:prop>
> >
> > What's wrong with it? It fulfills all requirements and uses W3C
> specs where
> > applicable.
>
> It does mean requiring that clients resolve XML namespaces on attribute
> names, which hasn't be necessary so far to implement a DAV client (in my
> experience anyway); possible interoperability issues there.

A DAV client *must* use an XML namespace aware parser anyway. Do you say
that there are parser that do support namespaces on elements, but don't on
attributes?

> I'll implement this source-set proposal sometime this week hopefully,
> given that nobody else objects to using XLink.

Sounds great.
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2002 06:53:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:00 GMT