W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2003

RE: How to use DTDs, or not to (was: RE: ACL and lockdiscovery)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:10:28 +0200
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Geoffrey M Clemm'" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEBGIMAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 6:25 PM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Geoffrey M Clemm'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: How to use DTDs, or not to (was: RE: ACL and lockdiscovery)
>
> ..
>
> Sure, but you could also say the allowable content model for
> 'response' element is ANY.  I will attempt to make this clearer

We could, but we shouldn't. The spec should use ANY if and only if it
assigns a meaning to ANY type of content. This is the case for <prop> (what
ever child element you find, it identifies a property) or <resourcetype>. It
is not the case for <response>.

> with English alongside the regular DTD although I still think
> the spec could be clearer without something else formal or
> semi-formal that worked better for us than DTDs.

Options:

1) keep the DTDs as they are and clarify what they mean (that's what I've
been trying to do),

2) extend the DTD syntax somehow,

3) switch to something that may allow to formally express what we need (as
far as I understand, only Relax NG can do this).

If there's interest in option 3), I can test that. However, I have my
serious doubts that people are willing to learn yet another syntax just to
fix a very minor issue with the DTD notation.

Julian


--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2003 17:11:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT