RE: XML attribute

From: Clemm, Geoff (gclemm@rational.com)
Date: Fri, Sep 22 2000

  • Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: comments on deltav-08.2" 

    Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B10D9E92@SUS-MA1IT01>
From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:26:17 -0400
Subject: RE: XML attribute

My motivation for not putting 'if-unsupported' in the DAV namespace
is that it provides very generic functionality that is not DAV specific,
so you could imagine one wanting this to become as generic as the
'id' attribute.

On the other hand, putting it in the DAV namespace does help avoid
collision with Joe Random's use of the attribute.  Since I'm pretty
50-50 on this issue, I'll go with Ron's suggestion and put it in the
DAV namespace in the next draft, but if anyone
else feels strongly (or even, weakly) about this, please chime in.

Cheers,
Geoff


-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Jacobs [mailto:rjacobs@gforce.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 2:30 PM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: RE: XML attribute


This attribute, now named if-unsupported, still is not in the DAV: name
space in the 08.2 draft. Why would this be the only name introduced by
DeltaV not to be in the DAV:
name space?

BTW, I like the new name.

Thanks, Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:geoffrey.clemm@rational.com]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:38 AM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: XML attribute



The trouble with "optional" or "obligatory" (or "required") is that
the attribute doesn't indicate whether the element is optional or
required, but rather what the server should do if it doesn't understand
the element type (where the choices are "ignore" or "abort", or "ok"
or "error").

Cheers,
Geoff

   From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com
   Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:26:57 +0100




   <ron>
      Section 3.1: To me, "unknown" sounds more like one of the potential
      values for this attribute. Maybe the name could be "if-unknown"
      (which I don't really like either) or something that indicates that
      the value is a choice to be taken conditionally.
   </ron>

   <geoff>
   Anything that can be done to improve the name would be good.
   Between "unknown" and "if-unknown", I probably prefer "unknown",
   but I agree that "unknown" is not the optimal choice.  Suggestions
   welcomed!
   </geoff>

   How about 'optional' or 'obligatory' with a "T" or "F" value?

   Tim