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

RE: Purpose of Namespace

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:03:10 -0500
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B105028BD8@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
The only namespace identified I would suggest *not* using in the
examples is "DAV:".  This in the past has misled folks into believing
that if they use DAV:xxx, they can leave out the xmlns: declaration,
which they can't.  I'd vote to leave the examples as they are.  
If we use more than one namespace identifier, I guarantee we will
get a continuing stream of "why do you have to use DAV: namespace
identifier for PROPFIND and use D: namespace identifier for PROPPATCH?"


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 3:51 AM
To: Jason Crawford; Roy T. Fielding
Cc: Clemm, Geoff; 'WebDAV'
Subject: RE: Purpose of Namespace

I don't think that the spec should make any attempt to explain how XML

What *could* be done is to vary the XML style in the examples. For instance,

<multistatus xmlns="DAV:" />

is even shorter, and as readable (at least in those examples where no mixing
with other namespaces is needed).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 7:01 AM
> To: Roy T. Fielding
> Cc: Clemm, Geoff; 'WebDAV'
> Subject: Re: Purpose of Namespace
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 06:13:42PM -0500, Clemm, Geoff wrote:
> > > I do not understand your point here.
> > >
> > > WebDAV uses XML namespaces to provide extensibility for
> > > property names, not because it lets the examples
> > > be shorter.
> > Maybe that should be said in the spec.
> I can add that to the issues/todo list, but I think I've heard Jim and a
> few other people mention something about the prefered style of
> prose in the
> spec, so I thought I'd check first...
> Is this something we want to put in the spec... or would we put that in a
> meta document?... like an annotated spec?
> If latter, I'm sure I can denote that in the issues list.
> J.
> ------------------------------------------
> Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2001 08:03:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:24 UTC