W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: [zodiac@holoweb.net: Re: Issue: PROP_ATTR]

From: Laurie Harper <zodiac@holoweb.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 13:11:26 -0400
Message-ID: <3ADB27BE.A528C26F@holoweb.net>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
"Julian F. Reschke" wrote:
> But by using XML as transport layer *and* by having examples of DAV:
> properties that *do* have XML content (for instance <DAV:resourcetype />, I
> think there's a strong indication that it actually *is* XML.

No, there's a strong indication that the *representation* is XML but the
semantics of the value are wholy outside of the scope of WebDAV.  That means
it's important not to impose artifacts of the transport encoding on the
meaning of the term property value.

> > server *as* XML, meaning that byte-for-byte equivalence between the input
> > and the stored value is unlikely to be easily achievable.
> Which shouldn't be an issue. If a client wants to set a dead property and
> get it back *exactly* as it is, it should send it as a properly escaped text
> node.

Exactly, yes.  That leaves the issue of defining what will and what will not
be preserved in the case where the value is encoded as an XML fragment.  If
it's not going to be a byte-for-byte equivalence, what *is* it going to be?

> That doesn't need to be defined at all. All the server will see is a
> property with one (or more) text nodes. For instance
>   a) <resourcetype><![CDATA[<collection />]]></resourcetype>
> isn't different from
>   b) <resourcetype>&lt;collection /&gt;</resourcetype>
> but is completely different from
>   c) <resourcetype><collection /></resourcetype>
> For a) and b), PROPFIND will return an escaped string as value, and I
> wouldn't expect the server to preserve whether it was escaped by CDATA or
> not.

I agree, w.r.t. a) and b).  What I'm after is clarification for case c),
preferably based on the Infoset definitions.

> Whether those attributes are part of the property's value is exactly the
> question that needs to be decided. I think both views are valid, we need to
> choose one.

> I agree, but the same remains true if we include the attribute nodes...

I'm suggesting that they are part of the XML encoding of the property, not
part of the property value -- an artifact of the encoding that can be
resolved by exclusion.  I also wasn't clear or explicit enough in
identifying my other issue -- defining what a property's value is when
expressed as 'in line' XML.

http: www.holoweb.net/~zodiac/   |   jabber: zodiac(@)jabber!org
email: zodiac(@)holoweb!net      |   icq: #78724820
   condom: general protection error, child process produced.
Received on Monday, 16 April 2001 13:07:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:22 UTC