- From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 16:27:27 -0700
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Julian, Geoff, Since it appears there is some agreement on this issue, could one of you please write up, in specification language, your proposed modification to the specification to resolve this issue? - Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Julian Reschke > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 9:15 AM > To: WebDAV WG > Subject: AW: Issue: XML_LANG_CLARIFY > > > > Von: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]Im Auftrag von Clemm, Geoff > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. April 2001 17:59 > > An: WebDAV WG > > Betreff: RE: Issue: XML_LANG_CLARIFY > > > > > > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > > > > 1) If you don't validate (and although the RFC shows DTD > > fragments, they > > can't be used for validation), any attribute can appear on > any element. > > It's > > up the RFC to define what this means. > > > > The RFC is equally capable of declaring that an attribute on a > > paricular element type is syntactically illegal. Whether or not the > > XML "DTD validates" is not especially relevant or interesting (we have > > many syntactic constraints in the protocol that cannot be expressed > > conveniently in DTD form). > > I agree. I think this is what I said as well :-) > > > 2) The current RFC current defines that xml:lang is to be > persisted, no > > matter whether it appears on the property element or an ancestor. > > > > To be precise, RFC 2518 states: > > > > Language tagging information in the property's value (in the > > "xml:lang" attribute, if present) MUST be persistently stored along > > with the property, and MUST be subsequently retrievable using > > PROPFIND. > > > > This statement does not specify whether an xml:lang attribute > > can appear in the DAV:prop element, or just in the actual property > > value elements. In other words, a statement of the form "no > > attributes can be placed on a DAV:prop element" would not conflict > > with this language in RFC 2518. > > Yes. The current wording isn't very precise because if refer's to the > property's value without having defined what the property value > actually is. > However, I would claim that if intent was to say that xml:lang should be > persisted only for child elements of the property element, this would have > been redundant anyway (I thought we agree that attributes of > child elements > of the property element need to be persisted anyway, right?). > > > 3) Actually, I would prefer to state that *any* attribute > can appear on > > the > > property element, and that they all should be persisted. It makes the > > spec > > easier and would conform with Canonical XML. > > > > Just to make sure we aren't talking past each other, I have very > > different opinions on what we should allow on the DAV:prop element (I > > prefer no attributes, but can live with "only xml:lang" or "only > > attributes in the xml namespace"), and what we allow on the property > > elements, e.g. DAV:displayname, DAV:getcontentlength, etc. (I prefer > > all attributes allowed, and must be maintained by the server). > > > So when you say "any attribute can appear on a property element", if > > you are referring to elements like "DAV:displayname", I agree with > > you, but if you are referring to the DAV:prop element, I disagree. > > And the spec is free to disallow attributes on DAV:prop but allow > > attributes on elements like DAV:displayname. > > Seems that after all we agree :-) > >
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2001 19:29:22 UTC