W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 1997

RE: minor questions and quibbles on V4 spec

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:34:02 -0700
Message-ID: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F48503F9F156@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'Jim Davis'" <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
2.1.1 A paragraph is being prepared on the subject.

2.6.6 My current understanding is that the XML namespace element
supports scoped values. If this is indeed the case then it should be
documented in the XML spec and we need take no action. if it is not true
then we need to change our examples. Again, perhaps this is a failure to understand XML on the part
of the authors but we were under the impression that the entire purpose
of XML's self describing nature is that it is possible to add in random
new tags without confusing older clients. The point of the example is to
say show how value added servers can add more information to a link
without breaking older clients.

2.8.4. This section is scheduled to be removed along with the proploc
attribute. I'll fix this. The Shttp you see is a printing error and is not in the
original word draft. We have adopted a new mechanism for printing the
draft that should prevent these problems.

Response Codes - Yes, this is a known issue and will be fixed in the
next version.

XML Case Sensitivity - Until fairly recently case was not sensitive in
XML. However a recent decision by the XML group has changed that. As
such the next draft will use lower case labels for everything.

Jim, you have a good eye. Both the scoping with namespaces and case
sensitivity have been hot issues around here. Independent analysis which
identifies the same issues the authors are worrying about is a good sign
we are worrying about the right things.

		Many thanks,


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jim Davis [SMTP:jdavis@parc.xerox.com]
> Sent:	Sunday, October 19, 1997 7:52 PM
> To:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	minor questions and quibbles on V4 spec
> 2.1.1 Shouldn't this cite RDF as a metadata standard?
> 2.6.6. Example
> Either I don't understand the XML Namespace processing instruction, or
> the
> example is wrong.  It seems to me that the Link, src, and dst elements
> need
> a D: prefix.  (Or does XML have a lexical scope for providing a
> "default"
> namespace, so that Link within D:Prop is taken to be D:Link?  If so,
> this
> should be explicitly documented, because it's an obscure feature.
> Likewise for the example in
> Also, either I don't understand the description of Link, or there's a
> bug
> here.  The values for Link are 1*Src and 1*Dst, it does not say that
> random
> other elements (in this case F:ProjFiles) are allowed.
> 2.8.4 PUT
> I don't understand the language here.  I can't see from what's written
> here
> why a PUT could not work for a property.  A GET returns text/xml
> specifying
> the name and value.  So if I did a PUT that contained a name and
> value,
> what would the problem be?  Seems like PUT would be very convenient,
> so why
> outlaw it?  I'm sure there's a good reason, but I can't guess it from
> the
> spec.
> PropFindResult
> The purpose mentions a SEARCH request, it should be PROPFIND Also the
> example uses the PROPFIND element not PropFIndResult.
> In the example is the HREF for the Namespace PI *really* supposed to
> be
> Shttp:?  If there's a reason to need to use SHTTP here, what is it?
> Otherwise it's just a confusing distraction.
> Minor notational inconsistency. At different places in the document
> listing
> reply codes, the  descriptive strings are written in three different
> ways: 
>  * in parenthesis (e.g. 3.10.5) (possibly followed by a hyphen)
>  * in string quotes (e.g. 5.2.7)
>  * with no delimiter other than a hyphen
> This is really trivial I know but it makes the document just ever so
> slightly harder to follow.
> Finally, is case significant in XML?  I hope not, because some
> elements are
> used as if was not, for example "Level".  Even if case is not
> significant,
> the document should be written as if it were.  (And, as I mentioned in
> a
> previous letter, we should use one consistent choice for writing
> elements
> whose names are compounds, e.g. MultiResponse.)
> Best regards
> ------------------------------------
> http://www.parc.xerox.com/jdavis/
> 650-812-4301
Received on Monday, 20 October 1997 01:34:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:12 UTC