W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Request for feedback: WebDAV property datatype draft

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:46:21 +0200
Message-ID: <4152E1BD.3040807@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: Bernard Desruisseaux <bernard.desruisseaux@oracle.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> Having the data-types spec stay out of arrays would certainly simplify 
> it, so I can't object to that approach.  Certainly I would think that if 
> somebody does an array/list/set property draft later the property 
> data-type stuff can be re-used then.

Yep. So is this a vote in favor of dropping Appendix A? (I would put it 
into a separate document, then).

> What about clarifying that XML-valued properties don't need a data type?

I do not agree they don't need one. As far as I concerned, the question 
of whether the property has just simple text content has nothing to do 
with whether it should have a type.

For instance, it would make sense to have a common type identifier for 
WebDAV properties that use the popular "href*" content format.

> I do disagree with the approach of minimizing examples for the reasons 
> you cited.  Isn't it a *bad* thing if people have different tastes about 
> types and optimal serializations, and doesn't that lead to lower 
> interoperability?  Within an experimental protocol, that approach may be 

Yes.

> acceptable, but still undesirable.

It's simply an area I don't want to cover here. IMHO, it makes perfect 
sense to state "if you have type information, this is how you can send 
it" without actually defining particular types (and instead, relying on 
existing type libraries).

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2004 14:46:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:06 GMT