- From: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@wsanchez.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:16:09 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Lukas Mathis <lukas.mathis@numcom.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
OK, my concern is that I'm going to want to use any compliant XML library to read and write my XML by asking my library to read the XML and then telling it to render the property elements back out. I'd really like to avoid having to know much more about XML than that, as you've noticed. ;-) If you want me to preserve the prefixes, I'm worried that I would then have to choose an XML library that's "WebDAV compliant" (XML plus X) rather than simply XML compliant, or write my own XML generator. (You're right that the prefixes are available at parse time in both SAX and DOM, so the issue in this case in the XML renderer.) That's a lot more work for the server author as compared to the client simply escaping the XML so as to guarantee that the server gives you back exactly what you gave it. What value is there in the server doing any parsing of dead properties in the first place? I still see no good reason to give the server XML (which it *has to* parse, because it's part of the containing request document) in a dead property. I realize that we allow it today, and can't take that away, but why go through hoops preserve XML data on the server when the client can very easily guarantee it by sending the XML as CDATA instead? -wsv On Nov 17, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > No, it's not a bug. There is no standard whatsoever about what an > XML API needs to provide. I even wrote a similar one for Java myself. > > But that doesn't mean that "generally", APIs do not provide this > kind of information.
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2005 23:16:24 UTC