Editorial Changes

The following are all "editorial" changes which do not alter the
functionality of the specification in any way.

***22_references	We have divided the references into normative and
informational, apparently this sort of division makes the RFC editor very
happy.

There are now two sections in section 22 References. The first is entitled
"Normative References" and the second "Informational References". This
change was made as a result of a request by the RFC editor. The
informational references section contains [Bradner, 1996], [Bray, Hollander,
Layman, 1998] , [Lasher, Cohen, 1995], [MARC, 1994], [Miller et al., 1996],
[Slein et al., 1998], [Weibel et al., 1995]. The normative references
section contains the remaining references.

***9.5_424	The last sentence in the paragraph is unclear, I have
tightened its language.

Current Sentence: For example, if a resource could not be moved as part of a
MOVE method, all the other resources would fail with a 424 Method Failure.

New Sentence: For example, if a command in a PROPPATCH method fails then, at
minimum, the rest of the commands will also fail with 424 Method Failure.

***XML_Names	The appendix has been updated to the latest XML namespace
draft. All namespace examples in the draft have been updated to use the new
syntax. Also updated reference

As posted to the list the new working draft on XML namespaces from the W3C
changed the attribute names in the namespace PI. We have put in the new
language in our appendix and have changed our examples.

***7.1.1_non-collection	Example 7.1.1 has been turned into a PROPFIND on a
non-collection resource because there were questions on what this would look
like.

The interesting part of this change is that because the original example was
supposed to be on a collection with depth zero it wasn't necessary to change
anything but the explanatory text and the URL. It wasn't even strictly
necessary to change the URL because a URL that ends in a slash is not
necessarily a collection.

The only paragraph in the example now reads:

In this example, PROPFIND is executed on a non-collection resource
http://www.foo.bar/file.  The propfind XML element specifies the name of
four properties whose values are being requested. In this case only two
properties were returned, since the principal issuing the request did not
have sufficient access rights to see the third and fourth properties.

***xml_null_warning	Split 24.3 into two parts, the first on the
difference in meaning between <a></a> and <a/> and the second on illegally
formatted XML.

Added the following text:

XML supports two mechanisms for indicating that an XML element does not have
any content.  The first is to declare an XML element of the form <A></A>.
The second is to declare an XML element of the form <A/>.  The two XML
elements are semantically identical.

However it is a violation of the XML specification to use the <A/> form if
the associated DTD does not declare EMPTY to be a legal value.  The DTD must
contain a statement along the lines of <!ELEMENT A EMPTY>.  If such a
statement is included then either form, <A></A> or <A/> can be used, but if
the statement isn't included then only <A></A> can be used.

***if_examples	Made the examples in sections 8.4.1 &  8.4.2 into their own
sections.

The two examples were in-line, made them into sections 8.4.1.1 and 8.4.2.1.

***example_headers	We use a number of different formats to identify an
example in the headers, we have gone through and made them all consistent.
They are all now in the form "example - …."

Some headers were "example: ...." some were ".... example" and some where
"example - .....". Now they are all "example - ....".

			Yaron

Received on Sunday, 5 April 1998 21:32:42 UTC