- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:36:32 +0200
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Lisa, thanks for the summary. > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:21 PM > To: Webdav WG > Cc: minutes@ietf.org > Subject: Notes from DAV meeting > > > > I haven't received the actual notes yet from the notetaker (hint, > nudge) but > here's what I wrote down from the WebDAV meeting last week in > London. Note > these are incomplete. Lots of progress made; various threads to > pick up and > continue on the list. > > Reported By Lisa Dusseault > > The slides I threw up on RFC2518 issues are available at > http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public/dav/WebDAVWG-London.ppt. > (WebDAV-compatible repository) A few notes regarding the slides: - Lock Null Resources: LOCK -> PUT is used by MS Office when doing a "save as..." - XML escaping: servers and clients need to process response bodies using a conforming, namespace aware XML parser. CDATA can appear everywhere where text content is expected (not only in properties) - xml:lang: should stick to the definitions in Canonical XML (http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315#DocSubsets): attributes in the xml namespace are inherited from parents. I'd rather not have WebDAV invent different rules - allprop: recommend adopting the proposal using a <include> element as child of <propfind>. > DAV WG charter discussion > ------------------------- > > Some items remain in DAV WG charter, not currently dealt with: advanced > collection, bindings, registry. > Is there any interest in actually working on these issues? Yes. We have implemented ordered collections and redirect references. I think I remember of having redirect references and BINDs added to the core protocol, is this still under consideration? > - Source property not implemented - > > The source property is better than the Translate header (used by > Microsoft) > because (a) it can name a separate resource that can be > separately addressed > by ACLs, (b) it can include several HREFs when a dynamic page is generated > by more than one source file. > > Suggestion from Peter (?) source property is part of the general > problem of > identifying releationships between resources, like bindings. Resolution - > bring up on the list. We are currently supporting the Translate header, as our back end system doesn't have a concept of different URLs for processed/unprocessed content. Furthermore, I think the current wording on <source> is hard to understand, in particular - src/dst seem be the wrong way round, - why does <source><link>.. need a <src> element? Isn't it always identical to the resource on which the property is defined? - the documentation on src/dst in <link> talks about a href XML element (http://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#ELEMENT_link) which doesn't exist If the intention is to have <source> to be able to replace the Translate header, this needs more work... > - XML 'lang' attribute placement - > > Consensus to put the lang attribute only on the 'prop' element. Strongly disagree. This contradicts both the current wording in RFC2518, the definitions in the XML spec itself <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-lang-tag> and specs defining XML fragment exchange (Canonical XML: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315#DocSubsets>).
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2001 07:36:34 UTC