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: Thu, 16 May 2002 07:36:55 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "Webdav WG \(E-mail\)" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCAEMMEJAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 1:50 PM
> To: Webdav WG (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED
>
>
> I would prefer keeping everything an element (e.g. an href element and
> a sourcetype element), e.g.:
>
> <D:prop>
>  <D:source-set>
>   <D:source>
>     <D:href>"http://example.com/dav/source.xml"</D:href>
>     <D:sourcetype>Source</D:sourcetype> </D:source>
>   <D:source>
>     <D:href>"http://example.com/dav/render.xsl"</D:href>
>     <D:sourcetype>Stylesheet</D:sourcetype> </D:source>
>   <D:source>
>     <D:href>"http://example.com/dav/etc.etc"</D:href/> </D:source>
>  </D:source-set>
> </D:prop>
>
> for the standard reasons why elements are preferable to attributes.

Geoff,

- there's plainly no consensus in the XML developer community about that,

- what's the *benefit* of marking up a URI as element instead of an
attribute, and if there is one, why do you think that XLink ignore this
fact,

- your proposal doesn't include a standard way for definining the type of a
link (an XLink feature that my proposal simple inherits).

Julian
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2002 01:37:30 GMT

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