W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: New RFC2518bis draft

From: Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@xythos.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:26:42 -0400
Message-ID: <27889B08CAEC7049B68FAD8717BA6017371BA2@ATL1VEXC006.usdom004.tco.tc>
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
> by
> 	"The value of a property element formally consists of the
> 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,
> 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
> property cannot be copied live, then its value MUST be duplicated,
> octet-for-octet, in an identically named, dead property on the
> 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?

Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 17:27:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:26 UTC