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

Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:35:30 -0800
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BFA29A12.611C4%fluffy@cisco.com>

On 11/17/05 2:41 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> 
>> Can you put out a proposal of which of the items you think clients should be
>> able to depend on the clients preserving?
> 
> That's in 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005OctDec/0467.html>.
> 
> Best regards, Julian

Ok so to trying to make sure I understand your proposal ...

On 11/6/05 12:04 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> So are comments, processing instructions, unparsed entities and so on
> in? Probably not.
Assume you mean MUST NOT and is there any more to the "so on"
> 
> Looking at the large set of information items, it's probably simpler if
> we just list the items we want to be round-tripped, such as:
So assuming you mean "server MUST preserver"
> 
> 1) On the property element itself: [namespace name], [local name],
> [children] of type element or character, plus [attributes] named
> "xml:lang" present on the element itself or it's closest ancestor
> 
> 2) On all children of the property element: [namespace name], [local
> name], [attributes] and [children] of type element or character.
> 
> Regarding the issue that started the whole discussion: we IMHO should
> encourage servers to preserve the [prefix} on all but the property
> element itself, and warn clients about information loss for those
> servers that don't.
I'm a bit lost on the point of encouraging them to preserver this. Do we
plan to make a later version of the specification require this? If not, I'm
not sure I see the point. (I do see the point of telling clients they can't
count on it) 
> 
> Best regards, Julian

If others understand this proposal, I've got not complaint with it and
please ignore this email but when I read it I did not realize this was a
specific proposal and saw it more as a general leaning towards what a
proposal might look like. I was happy to see the outline post but it seemed
like you had an excellent grasp on what the problem was here and might be
able to provide some crisp description of the solution and a bit of
explanation on why this was the right solution so that none of us were
doomed to an endless recurring conversation. Seriously, you are in a great
position to put the nail in the coffin on this one once and for all. Make it
end. 

Cullen
Received on Friday, 18 November 2005 04:52:47 GMT

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