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: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:33:55 -0500
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B105CE04DD@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Yes, I'd agree that this clearly supports Julian's position
that an empty element of the form "<a></a>" matches a #PCDATA
DTD declaration.

So I modify my rejection of choice <b> (i.e. returning an empty
element) to be: The definition of DAV:creationdate states:
"If present, it contains a timestamp of the moment when the
resource was created".  An empty value does not meet this
requirement (although one could debate the meaning of "present").

Cheers,
Geoff


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:38 AM
To: Clemm, Geoff; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: RE: RFC2518 ambiguity on creationdate/lastmodifieddate


Geoff,

as far as I can tell, PCDATA is defined in:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-Mixed

where it says:

[Definition: An element type has mixed content when elements of that type
may contain character data, optionally interspersed with child elements.] In
this case, the types of the child elements may be constrained, but not their
order or their number of occurrences:

Note the "may".

Besides, this would mean that with DTDs you can't have elements that are
restricted to arbitrary text content, but may not be empty. This is clearly
not the case.

Finally: in doubt, try it with a validating parser.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:33 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: RFC2518 ambiguity on creationdate/lastmodifieddate
>
>
> 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 Friday, 8 February 2002 08:34:29 GMT

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