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

Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 14:45:17 -0800
Message-Id: <80384a06c24ed28e1e638bc41e62b04e@osafoundation.org>
Cc: WebDav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>


On Nov 3, 2005, at 1:00 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> ...
>> 2.  InfoSet requires the prefixes of namespaces to be preserved.  
>> Some WebDAV servers today do not do this so this would make them 
>> non-compliant.  Similarly, if I'm reading it correctly, it requires 
>> that namespace declarations be preserved as part of the element where 
>> the client declared them -- another requirement that existing servers 
>> don't meet.
> > ...
>
> You're confusing the terminology (that we can re-use) with the 
> question what parts of the Infoset WebDAV wants to make 
> reound-trippable. Those do not need to be the same. The XML Infoset 
> spec just helps in talking about these things.

Fair enough, I think the terminology does make things clear and we can 
define our own list about what's round-tripped.   On those terms I'm 
perfectly in favour of using InfoSet terminology. So does this boil 
down to saying something like:

   "All Information Items as defined in XML InfoSet [ref] MUST be 
round-tripped as part of the property value, with the exception of the 
following
    - On an element information item: the prefix and namespace attributes
    - On an attribute information item: the prefix
    - On a namespace information item: the prefix

   Anything that is not part of the Information Set does not need to be 
preserved by the server."


>
>> 3.  It doesn't deal with the boundary that WebDAV defines between 
>> property name and property value.  We still ought to specify that 
>> stuff ourselves.  For example, are attributes on the property name 
>> element considered part of the property value.
>
> Yes, we need to define that.
>
>> Has anybody besides Julian and myself read this spec?  Does anybody 
>> have thoughts on whether this approach is still advisable?
>
> Alternate approaches would be to use DOM or XPath terminology.
>
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 22:45:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT