RE: must property names be empty and attributeless?

An explicit design decision for properties is that they are NOT resources.
In HTTP resources handle content negotiation. If you need content
negotiation then you need a resource.

However it is possible for the server to return you a URL which can resolve
to the same value as an associated property. So if I ask for the author
property I will get a static result, negotiation is strictly not allowed.
However it would be perfectly fine to also get back an extension to the
multistatus format that returns a URL associated with that property. That
URL could then be resolved using content location.

			Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@parc.xerox.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 1998 6:32 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: must property names be empty and attributeless?
> 
> 
> In all extant examples of PROPFIND, the names of the properties to be
> fetched are always passed as empty tags, e.g.
> 
> <D:propfind>
>  <D:prop>
>    <D:getcontentlength/>
>    <X:shoesize/>
>  </D:prop>
> </D:propfind>
> 
> Is there anything in the DTD that mandates that the property 
> names be empty
> and have no attributes?  The DTD for prop is ANY, which seems 
> to allow it,
> but perhaps there are unstated assumptions that the tags be empty.
> 
> To motivate this, suppose I have a property store that can 
> express the same
> underlying value in one of several units, e.g. metric or 
> english.  I'd like
> the PROPFIND client to be able to express a choice of units.  
> There are at
> least three ways this could be done.
> 
> 1) Express the units with a tag within the property (thus it 
> ceases to be
> empty), e.g.
> 
> <D:propfind>
>  <D:prop>
>    <X:shoesize>
>      <X:units><X:metric/></X:units>
>    </X:shoesize>
>  </D:prop>
> </D:propfind>
> 
> 2) Express the units as an attribute of the property
> 
> <D:propfind>
>  <D:prop>
>    <X:shoesize units="metric"/>
>  </D:prop>
> </D:propfind>
> 
> Are either or both of these approaches allowed by WebDAV?
> 
> As for the third way, it is awful:  Express the units by 
> concatenating them
> into the name of the property itself.  I mention it only to 
> prevent some
> kindly soul from suggesting it to me as a workaround.
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 July 1998 19:30:47 UTC