- From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:51:25 -0500
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF7AC2BB1F.7AD34C16-ON852569EE.0013D610@raleigh.ibm.com>
Excellent suggestion Geoff! I couldn't agree more. However, this is really a WebDAV issue too, so the WebDAV working group should get involved. If they aren't interested in providing DTDs, then there probably isn't much point in Delta-V doing providing a partial set. Also note that having the DTDs should never require clients or servers to use them. They won't help formalize the extensions either. Personally I'm more interested in getting the semantics understood and formalized. DTDs can't do this, they only do structure. A good, complete object model, including behavior, state models, and/or interaction diatrams (or collaboration graphs depending on your preference) would be much more useful. "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com> Sent by: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org 02/08/2001 10:03 PM To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org cc: Subject: Re: DTD Confusion A compromise suggestion for those interested in DTD's: Each of the WebDAV messages are a separate XML document. If you design a separate DTD for each WebDAV message type (i.e. one for a PROPFIND request, one for a PROPFIND response, one for a CHECKIN request, etc.), I believe you will find that all the anomalies disappear. In addition, I believe this will produce a set of much more manageable, extensible DTD's than would be provided by trying to amass all WebDAV DTD information into one massive DTD. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2001 22:51:32 UTC