W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1998

RE: WG Last Call: Section on Internationalization, XML

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 14:40:39 -0800
Message-ID: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D0113C6BF@red-msg-59.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'ejw@ics.uci.edu'" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "'WEBDAV WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
1. I will make it clear that UTF8 supports all of Unicode.

2. As far as character sets go, XML requires that all XML parsers implement
UTF8/16, DAV requires XML, therefore all implementers of DAV must support
UTF8/16. Thus if someone wishes to build a DAV implementation and be sure it
is compliant they have no option but to use either UTF8/16. Any other
charset will be a roll of the dice. Thus we have achieved the very goal you

3. We used those features of XML that we needed and we make compliance with
the XML specification mandatory. We do not define a subset of XML, we just
happen to only use a subset but that is because we only needed a subset.
While I appreciate your concerns if someone implements a broken XML parser
then they are not in compliance with the DAV protocol.

4. We are aware of the standards status of both namespaces and XML and are
working closely with the W3C to resolve both issues.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jim Whitehead [SMTP:ejw@ics.uci.edu]
> Sent:	Thursday, January 22, 1998 8:38 AM
> Subject:	Re: WG Last Call: Section on Internationalization, XML
> Another message caught by the spam filter.  I have now learned that it is 
> possible to have a separate list of email addresses for people who can
> post 
> to the list, but whose email address isn't part of the list (say, for 
> people who receive list email through a spam filter address, but send mail
> from a different address).  I am adding valid email addresses caught by
> the 
> spam filter to this "accept2" list, so hopefully this "caught by the spam 
> filter" phenomenon will decrease to zero over time.
> - Jim
> Now for the message from Martin Duerst:
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Martin J. Duerst [SMTP:duerst@w3.org]
> Sent:	Wednesday, January 21, 1998 9:23 PM
> To:	ejw@ics.uci.edu; 'WEBDAV WG'
> Subject:	[Spam?] Re: WG Last Call: Section on Internationalization,
> At 14:56 98/01/19 -0800, Jim Whitehead wrote:
> >
> Hello Jim,
> I had a look at the document, in particular the i18n section.
> It is great to see such a section (it's the first i-d where
> I see such a section), and it reads very nicely.
> The only factual error I have found is the (implicit)
> claim that UTF-8 does not support all of ISO 10646.
> This is not at all true. UTF-8 is as potent as UCS-4;
> if not, the IETF/IESG would not support it as they do.
> I would therefore propose to remove any reference to
> UCS-4.
> Also, I would propose to clearly state, here or in a
> usage document or whereever, that in order to support
> interoperability, it is strongly suggested that only
> UTF-8 (and UTF-16) be used, and that the former be
> preferred for ease of debugging and compactness,...
> You could even go further and say that in Webdav,
> only UTF-8 is accepted. It will help a lot, because
> otherwise, you will very quickly get two webdav
> implementations that don't work together.
> XML has to serve many masters, and in particular for
> the document community, it seemed too audacious to
> simply restrict it to one encoding only. But for a
> place such as webdav, it's the best solution to do
> this on its own.
> There are a few other points where features of XML
> seemed to have gone unused. In particular, I didn't
> find, in the examples or in general:
> - Entities
> - Inline DTD additions/extensions
> - Attributes
> - CDATA sections
> While the lack of attributes is somewhat unusual, but
> easy to understand (you put everything into element
> content), the lack of the three other things looks
> not very surprising. There is e.g. some folklore
> that says that XML implementers typically implement
> everything but entities.
> With the definitions and the examples in the spec,
> the following scenario is very probable:
> - Receiver-side implementors provide the necessary
>    features in their parser and test the examples.
> - Because a receiver is usually also a sender, they
>    won't send data with the above features.
> - Everything goes fine for some time.
> - Some new implementor comes along, has read all of
>    the XML spec, and decides to be "clever".
> - Stuff doesn't work, and everybody gets blamed to
>    not conform to XML.
> So I think the spec should:
> - Either be pepped up with some more complicated
>    examples with the above features.
> - Or say clearly that it only uses a subset of XML,
>    and say which features are excluded.
> Please also note that while XML 1.0 is a W3C proposed
> recommendation, and may become a recommendation in
> the near future, namespaces are not part of XML 1.0.
> Hope this helps.  With kind regards,   Martin.
Received on Thursday, 22 January 1998 17:41:01 UTC

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