W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:12:27 -0700
Message-Id: <643638228b4f0af8dd27bcdcb5c4a6d6@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
I guess what's giving me so much cognitive dissonance here is that 
prefixes now are not preserved but whitespace is.  That seems 
inconsistent to me -- if some XML rewriting is OK but other XML isn't, 
what's the difference.

Lisa

On Oct 13, 2005, at 12:36 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Actually what I'm asking for is that we don't change the text unless 
>>> there clearly is a consensus to do so. The current spec says 
>>> whitespace is significant, and as far as I can tell, nobody has 
>>> asked for a change of that.
>>>
>> Fair enough, although now I'm thinking we should be specific about 
>> XML values, and about the beginning/end of the value as well as the 
>> middle.  I was thinking that the existing text in 2518 applied only 
>> to text property values.
>
> From <http://www.webdav.org/wg/rfcdev/issues.htm>:
>
> --
> 107
> 	
> IS_XMLSPACE_SIGNIFICANT
> 	
> Edit
> 	
> InBis
> 	
> Should the xml:space attribute be respected.íZ 2518bis on 6/1/02 says 
> it should not. There is some debate on this.
> 	
> Re-raised: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002AprJun/0137.html
> 	
> The conclusion of the May/June 2002 discussion was that white space is 
> significant: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002AprJun/0152.html
> --
>
> So the old issues list says this was discussed, that there was 
> consensus, and that rfc2518bis has been changed accordingly.
>
> If you want to re-open the issue, please do so (but in a different 
> thread). If you do, please make sure to clarify what was wrong the 
> resolution we reached back then.
>
>> I'm still very curious to hear what implementations do/assume; that's 
>> good input to see if the consensus is consistent with the spec.
>
> Do you have any data about servers that get that wrong? That would be 
> interesting indeed.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2005 20:12:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:10 GMT