FWD: [lisal@microsoft.com>] RE: use of DAV namespace
Ralph Swick [as maintainer] (swick@w3.org)
Wed, 19 May 1999 13:10:17 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990519131017.02ce1b30@127.0.0.1>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 13:10:17 -0400
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
From: "Ralph Swick [as maintainer]" <swick@w3.org>
Subject: FWD: [lisal@microsoft.com>] RE: use of DAV namespace
[caught in spam filter - rrs]
>Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:21:24 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "lisal" <lisal@microsoft.com>
>To: "Jim Davis" <jdavis@coursenet.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>,
> <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
>Old-Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 16:21:10 -0700
>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <38CFE5072909D311830C00A0C9C74EB94248@PTPUP.dfpt.extest.microsoft.com>
>X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
>Subject: [Moderator Action] RE: use of DAV namespace
>
>I don't see a drop-dead problem with this, if we're going to allow, as
>you say, that WebDAV XML cannot in general be validated.
>
>The DASL use of DAV:and will be within DASL containers like
><DAV:basicsearch> (or is it simplesearch)? Versioning will use it
>within DAV:basicrsr I think. There is sufficient context for it to be
>clear which is meant.
>
>Actually, it may be even better than that, if we're careful: if we can
>make sure the meaning of the versioning DAV:and consistent with the DASL
>DAV:and.
>
>In general, you point out a really useful consideration, which is to be
>aware of what XML properties all other DAV WGs are defining. It's too
>late to wait until they're proposed standards, when it's so easy to deal
>with it earlier.
>
>Lisa Lippert
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@coursenet.com]
>> Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 4:02 PM
>> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
>> Subject: use of DAV namespace
>>
>>
>> The Versioning Extensions (Kaler et al, Jan 20, 1999) draft defines a
>> number of XML elements (some are properties, others just
>> elements) , all in
>> the DAV: namespace. Of these, at least three conflict with elements
>> defined by DASL. (DAV:and, DAV:or, and DAV:not).
>>
>> Thus It would not be possible to construct a single DTD for
>> WebDAV with
>> both versioning and DASL. I understand that, in general,
>> WebDAV XML can't
>> be validated (because we allow undefined elements to be used, for
>> extensibility), still it seems bad if two different DAV extensions are
>> incompatible.
>>
>> I suggest that both extensions (DeltaV and DASL) used a new
>> namespace, at
>> least for those elements they introduce.
>>
>> Would it be possible to use DAV://versioning/ and DAV://dasl/
>> respectively?
>>
>> Besides the three conflicting elements, there are a number of
>> others that
>> seem to me to have rather "generic" names, that is, I could
>> imagine other
>> DAV extensions that might want to use these names. I
>> understand that tag
>> element names are not user visible, but still for the sake of
>> programmers
>> it is useful to have meaningful names. To avoid future
>> confusion, it might
>> be better to put all new versioning elements in a new namespace.
>>
>> The potentially conflicting elements names include:
>>
>> DAV:comment
>> DAV:report
>> DAV:basetime
>> DAV:inheritancetype
>>
>> I've only just joined the deltaV list, sorry if this has
>> already come up.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Jim Davis
>>
>> please reply to jrd3@alum.mit.edu, despite the Reply-To
>> address in the header.