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

Re: RFC2518 ambiguity on creationdate/lastmodifieddate

From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:22:48 -0800
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020208172247.M1205@lyra.org>
If mod_dav's backend repository does not support the property, then it
operates according to (a) already (return a 404). I think that makes the
most sense (obviously :-), and would continue to vote for that option.

Cheers,
-g

On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 09:34:56AM -0500, Clemm, Geoff wrote:
> My rationale for rejecting (c) was:
> "(c) violates the requirement in 8.1 that missing
>  property errors be reported"
> 
> So that leaves (a) as my choice for the most consistent
> interpretation of 2518.
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 8:42 AM
> To: Clemm, Geoff; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: RFC2518 ambiguity on creationdate/lastmodifieddate
> 
> 
> OK,
> 
> so what's your suggestion then? a) or c)?
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 2:34 PM
> > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: RFC2518 ambiguity on creationdate/lastmodifieddate
> > 
> > 
> > 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?
> > >
> > 

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 20:22:14 GMT

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