- From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:38:22 +0000
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
I agree, it makes an excellent candidate for another appendix. Tim "Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com> on 2001-02-09 04:07:52 PM Please respond to "Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org cc: Subject: Re: DTD Confusion (i.e., opportunity) I think having the DTDs is great (XML Schema even better), and they should be included in the document along with the notes that Jim W made about WebDAV conventions. I used the WebDAV DTDs a lot when developing DAV4J to define the objects being passed between the client and server. However, I still don't think they should be in any way required by the protocol for sending or receiving requests. So I encourage anyone interested to contribute to this valuable effort, and would be happy to consider including DTDs in the DeltaV spec as long as 1) they don't introduce unnecessary issues, and 2) we don't hold up the spec for the details. This is probably a refinement that can be applied after proposed draft.
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 11:39:23 UTC