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

RE: rfc2518bis DAV DTD (was Re: How to use DTDs, or not ...)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:28:35 +0200
To: "Stanley Guan" <stanley.guan@oracle.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMEDCINAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Stanley Guan
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:41 PM
> To: Julian Reschke; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Re: rfc2518bis DAV DTD (was Re: How to use DTDs, or not ...)
> Julian,
> See my comments inline!
> Thx,
> -Stanley
> ...
> > Last time was dicussed I was told that this will not allow new extension
> > elements from the DAV: namespace.
> True.  But, new DAV extension elements should be explicitly listed in
> the "choice" component.  So, any bogus element in DAV: namespace
> can be caught.

How does that help? If a recipient validates a message based on a
RFC2518bis-based XML Schema, and draft-ietf-webdav-redirect-ref protocol
extends a particular element, these messages will not be valid according to
the Schema *without* modifying the schema. The point of extensibility is
that old components continue to work with extended messages *without*

> I thought we want to be loose on what can be allowed at element
> level.  Within each element, don't we want all attributes to be
> explicitly spelt out?  Why do we need arbitrary attributes to be
> allowed on any specific DAV: element?

Because that's allowed now.

> ...

Regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2003 03:31:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:28 UTC