- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 08:19:14 -0400
- To: "Webdav WG (E-mail)" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
x1: I consider it significantly more important that a WebDAV feature be consistent with the WebDAV standard than that it be consistent with some other non-WebDAV standard, W3C or other. x2: I consider it significantly more important that a WebDAV feature be processable with standard WebDAV aware parsers (which expect href elements) than that they be processable with a non-WebDAV parser (such as XLink). x3: I consider adding a DAV:role element to be a superior way of adding this functionality in a WebDAV spec, given the capability of later extending the DAV:role element with additional structured values, which is not available with a role attribute. h2: The DAV:expand-property report is just a concrete instance of the cost of being inconsistent ... if we adopt the xlink:href attribute for the DAV:source property, every WebDAV feature that wants to do something generic with DAV:href elements would have to be defined and coded to look for both DAV:href elements and xlink:href attributes. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:11 AM To: Clemm, Geoff; Webdav WG (E-mail) Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 2:44 AM > To: Webdav WG (E-mail) > Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED > > > I agree with the addition of the DAV:sourcelabel element. > > But I object to the use of the xlink:href attribute, instead of the > standard WebDAV DAV:href element. I believe it is significantly more > important to maintain consistency within the WebDAV standard than it > is to be consistent with some non-WebDAV standard such as xlink. In > particular, this breaks functionality such as is provided by the > DAV:expand-property report defined in RFC-3253, which is based on the > existence of DAV:href nodes in property values. Geoff, I expected this one :-) Pros for DAV:href syntax: h1 - consistent with other WebDAV specs h2 - can take advantage of DAV:expand-property report Pros for XLink syntax: x1 - consistent with W3C recommendations x2 - can be processed using standard XLink aware code (for instance, in browsers / xml based user interfaces) x3 - provides a standard framework for the definition of rules as URIs Thoughts: h2: isn't really a problem. We just define a new REPORT (or extend the existing one) to work on xlink:href elements as well. Note that xlink:href elements may appear in other people's dead (and live) properties anyway, so it makes sense to have a standard way to resolve them anyway. If there's some interest in this, I'll make a proposal. x3: I think any solution using non-XLink based syntax must define a way how to express the role of the link. One way would be to reuse XLinks link role URIs *without* using their syntax (which I'd consider lame :-).
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 08:19:47 UTC