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

RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 08:19:14 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B106EEC20B@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "Webdav WG (E-mail)" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
x1: I consider it significantly more important that
a WebDAV feature be consistent with the WebDAV standard than that it be
consistent with some other non-WebDAV standard, W3C or other.

x2: I consider it significantly more important that a WebDAV feature
be processable with standard WebDAV aware parsers (which expect href
elements) than that they be processable with a non-WebDAV parser (such
as XLink).

x3: I consider adding a DAV:role element to be a superior way of adding
this functionality in a WebDAV spec, given the capability of later
extending the DAV:role element with additional structured values, which
is not available with a role attribute.

h2: The DAV:expand-property report is just a concrete instance of the
cost of being inconsistent ... if we adopt the xlink:href attribute
for the DAV:source property, every WebDAV feature that wants to do something
generic with DAV:href elements would have to be defined and coded to look
for both DAV:href elements and xlink:href attributes.

Cheers,
Geoff


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:11 AM
To: Clemm, Geoff; Webdav WG (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED


> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 2:44 AM
> To: Webdav WG (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED
>
>
> I agree with the addition of the DAV:sourcelabel element.
>
> But I object to the use of the xlink:href attribute, instead of the
> standard WebDAV DAV:href element.  I believe it is significantly more
> important to maintain consistency within the WebDAV standard than it
> is to be consistent with some non-WebDAV standard such as xlink.  In
> particular, this breaks functionality such as is provided by the
> DAV:expand-property report defined in RFC-3253, which is based on the
> existence of DAV:href nodes in property values.

Geoff,

I expected this one :-)

Pros for DAV:href syntax:

h1 - consistent with other WebDAV specs
h2 - can take advantage of DAV:expand-property report

Pros for XLink syntax:

x1 - consistent with W3C recommendations
x2 - can be processed using standard XLink aware code (for instance, in
browsers / xml based user interfaces)
x3 - provides a standard framework for the definition of rules as URIs

Thoughts:

h2: isn't really a problem. We just define a new REPORT (or extend the
existing one) to work on xlink:href elements as well. Note that xlink:href
elements may appear in other people's dead (and live) properties anyway, so
it makes sense to have a standard way to resolve them anyway. If there's
some interest in this, I'll make a proposal.

x3: I think any solution using non-XLink based syntax must define a way how
to express the role of the link. One way would be to reuse XLinks link role
URIs *without* using their syntax (which I'd consider lame :-).
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 08:19:47 GMT

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