- From: Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@xythos.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:26:42 -0400
- To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Julian, I've made a number of your suggestions exactly, or used them to guide me to do a better job. I have comments on some others. > Section 2.2: where to put xml:lang attribute > > This may need to be clarified, but a better place is to do it where > property > values are defined. I think this is part of a larger discussion... I don't recall any opinions from others yet. > Section 3.3: Attributes in property values are significant. > > Do not add the new text. Instead, replace > > "The value of a property when expressed in XML MUST be well formed." > > by > > "The value of a property element formally consists of the following > items > defined in [XMLINFOSET], chapter 2.2: > > - Child element and character information items (element and text > content), > - Attributes, > - Namespace attributes (as far as used by child information items) > - In-scope namespaces (as far as used by child information items) > - The value of an xml:lang attribute if in scope of the property > element." 1) What is XMLINFOSET? 2) This definition of a property value adds significant definitions to the specification. Are the implications of each of these consistent with existing implementations? > Section 4.2: Lock-null resources removed > > Text mentions: "SHOULD default to reasonable, or reasonably blank, values > for other properties like getcontentlanguage" > > I disagree: unknown properties should be treated as not being present > (just > like the relevant HTTP headers), NOT as blank. Any reasons? Any suggested text? Is it OK for these particular properties to be not present? > Section 4.5: Propertybehavior (in MOVE, COPY) removed > > Quote: "Live properties described in this document SHOULD be duplicated as > identically behaving live properties at the destination resource. If a > property cannot be copied live, then its value MUST be duplicated, > octet-for-octet, in an identically named, dead property on the destination > resource. " > > Comments: > > 1) did we reach consensus on this? We did reach consensus on removing propertybehavior, IMO. I attempted to turn the vague idea into text. This particular text existed before, by the way so is in some sense a different issue. > 2) If we did, the wording "octet-by-octet" doesn't make sense (because > we're > talking of property values) You may be right. Do you have another suggestion? Lisa
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 17:27:45 UTC