- From: Julian F. Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 22:46:58 +0200
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "DeltaV" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 7:34 AM > To: DeltaV > Subject: Use of attributes > > > Is there some reason why DeltaV deviates from every prior > instance of WebDAV > property representation in XML? Not only does the current syntax make > unnecessary use of attributes, which DAV has traditionally > discouraged, but > it reinvents something for which we already have a mechanism in DAV. > > To be consistent with how 2518 does PROPFIND, PROPPATCH, etc. I would have > expected: > <D:supported-live-property-set xmlns:D="DAV:" > xmlns:x="http://www.xythos.com/schemas/StorageServer"/> > <D:getcontentlength/> > <D:getcontentlanguage/> > <x:quota/> > <x:size/> > ... > </D:supported-live-property-set> > > But the DeltaV draft requires the following syntax: > <supported-live-property-set> > <supported-live-property name="getcontentlength" namespace="DAV:"/> > <supported-live-property name="getcontentlanguage" namespace="DAV:"/> > <supported-live-property name="quota" > namespace="http://www.xythos.com/schemas/StorageServer"/> > <supported-live-property name="size" > namespace="http://www.xythos.com/schemas/StorageServer"/> > ... > </supported-live-property-set> > > Is there some merit to doing things this way that isn't > immediately obvious? > The DeltaV syntax is rather more bloated and far less obvious. > Moreover, it > makes it impossible for people to reuse the code they already have for > parsing DAV property lists. This is not a feature. > > Aside from consistency and stylistic considerations, the syntax > in the draft > is just plain broke. The DTD for supported-live-property set hardwires the > namespace to DAV: > > <!ATTLIST supported-live-property namespace NMTOKEN "DAV:"> > > This makes it impossible to render vendor-specific extensions (thus > rendering my above example technically illegal). I assume this is an error > since just yesterday Geoff claimed that vendor-specific extensions were to > appear in supported-live-property-set. You might want to check a similar thread from April: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2001AprJun/0038.html>
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2001 16:47:09 UTC