- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:05:41 +0200
- To: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, "Lisa Dusseault" <ldusseault@xythos.com>
- Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Actually, things are worse. Legal WebXML *will* not be valid according to the DTD. The reason being that "legal WebDAV XML" uses elements in the "DAV:" namespace, while DTDs are fundamentally incompatible with XML namespaces. Julian -----Original Message----- From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 7:05 PM To: Lisa Dusseault Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org Subject: Re: New RFC2518bis draft, XML_NOT_VALID I think the current text could be improved by changing "legal XML may not" to be "legal WebDAV XML might not". This avoids the use of "may not" which has a somewhat different meaning. I'm suggesting inserting "WebDAV" there just to be a bit clearer although I think one can improve on that suggestion also. "A DTD is provided in Appendix 1. However, legal XML may not be valid according to this DTD, because unknown XML elements may appear in WebDAV syntax without making the syntax illegal." becomes "A DTD is provided in Appendix 1. However, legal WebDAV XML might not be valid according to this DTD, because unknown XML elements may appear in WebDAV syntax without making the syntax illegal." ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 14:06:13 UTC