- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:54:17 +0200
- To: "Webdav WG \(E-mail\)" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
I don't buy that argument. The XML spec clearly states what the scope of xml:lang is (the containing element and all descendants). If WebDAV wants to override this rule, there should be a better rational than "it's too much work implementing what the XML spec says". Regarding your questions: > Please explain why it is important to be flexible in this case I think it is important that XML-based specifications do not override XML's rules without good reason. In this case, I haven't seen one yet. > Also, if the lang attribute must be legal in more than one location, explain if there is any semantic difference between the multiple locations. For each DAV:prop element, there's only one xml:lang declaration in scope. It is completely irrelevant to which attribute it is attached. > Also, explain what happens if the lang attribute is present in multiple locations scoped to the same property, particularly if it has different values in different locations! Can't happen with the given scoping rules. > If some servers will be slightly incompatible with RFC2518bis because of making the location specific, I understand that's undesirable. However, I think in the long run it will make interoperability more likely for this feature, and the benefits will outweigh the costs. I think this argument works both directions. The only problem with the current spec is that it's silent on the issue, *possibly* causing interop problems for people not reading the XML spec properly. The non-intrusive fix to this is to clarify how the scoping rules defined in the XML spec apply to property values, NOT to change those. Julian -----Original Message----- From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 6:52 PM To: Jason Crawford; Julian Reschke Cc: Webdav WG (E-mail) Subject: RE: RFC2518bis: xml:lang (2.6) A specific location for the lang attribute is good. It is more tightly constrained, which makes it easier for both clients and servers to handle XML with property values. Please explain why it is important to be flexible in this case. Also, if the lang attribute must be legal in more than one location, explain if there is any semantic difference between the multiple locations. Also, explain what happens if the lang attribute is present in multiple locations scoped to the same property, particularly if it has different values in different locations! If some servers will be slightly incompatible with RFC2518bis because of making the location specific, I understand that's undesirable. However, I think in the long run it will make interoperability more likely for this feature, and the benefits will outweigh the costs. Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 7:53 AM To: Julian Reschke Cc: Lisa Dusseault; Webdav WG (E-mail); w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Subject: RE: RFC2518bis: xml:lang (2.6) I agree with Geoff and Julian that the 2518bis wording is not right because it specifies a specific location for that attribute. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002JanMar/0318.html I also acknowledge that it's not easy to come up with a wording for this behavior. Sorry Lisa :-) J. ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 13:54:50 UTC