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

RE: RFC2518 ambiguity on creationdate/lastmodifieddate

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:32:45 -0500
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103F8AF83@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Well, there always is that question about whether <foo></foo>
is a node with no children, or a node with a single empty
string child.  Since section 2.4 of the xml spec says:
"All text that is not markup constitutes the character data of the
document",
and since I do not consider "nothing" to be "text", I go with the
interpretation that says <foo></foo> contains no character data,
and therefore does not match a #PCDATA declaration.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:01 PM
To: Clemm, Geoff; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: RE: RFC2518 ambiguity on creationdate/lastmodifieddate


> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 6:55 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: RFC2518 ambiguity on creationdate/lastmodifieddate
> 
> 
> 2518 is at best ambiguous, and a worst, contradictory on this topic.
> 
> I would vote for (a) property not found.
> 
> (b) is a possible interpretation, but an empty value
> violates the DTD for this property.

Why would that be a violation?
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2002 15:33:19 GMT

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