- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 04:43:09 -0800
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
I'll go you one better. Not only would I vigorously object, I simply won't add a requirement for them to the code I write :-) DTDs are nice from a descriptive standpoint, but they can't do anything about the semantics. And since you're processing for semantics, the rules emboded in a DTD just naturally come along for the ride. There is little incremental benefit in this scenario. Cheers, -g On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 06:57:15AM -0500, Clemm, Geoff wrote: > I agree with all of Jim's points below, and just to make sure that > there is no misunderstanding of my position, I would > vigorously object to any requirement of any kind wrt the presence > of DTD in WebDAV messages (other than the requirement that they > be optional :-). > > My suggestion was just intended as a way to allow the DTD folks to > get what they need, while clarifying that the protocol will only > be concerned with intra-message, not inter-message DTD consistency. > > Cheers, > Geoff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Whitehead [mailto:ejw@cse.ucsc.edu] > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 1:05 AM > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Subject: RE: DTD Confusion > > > Well, I personally have had mixed emotions concerning the value of DTDs in > the protocol specification. When DTDs come up, half of the time I curse > Yaron for pushing DAV into using XML in the first place. But, then there > are times, such as when editing the ACL specification recently, where the > act of creating the DTD uncovered several errors in the XML aspects of the > specification, and DTDs seem like a good thing. > > If someone with deep implementation experience like Hartmut Warncke feels > that appropriate use of DTDs would have saved some interoperability > problems, then it seems like the 3-5 hours to produce these DTDs would be > worthwhile (it didn't take that long to produce the ACL spec. one, even with > fixing the errors I found). > > As for the per-method DTD, this seems like a good idea, one worth exploring > in the revision of RFC 2518. > > Of course, this is all subject to the caveat that the WebDAV XML rules not > be interfered with (i.e., sibling ordering is not guaranteed, the XML > namespace append rules, and the unknown element ignore rule). I'm also not > in favor of sending the URL of the DTD in every message -- what a waste of > bandwidth, since clients and servers won't be doing dynamic validation. > > - Jim -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 07:41:34 UTC