RE: How to use DTDs, or not to (was: RE: ACL and lockdiscovery)

I guess I'd go with (1), with (3) as a backup choice.
In particular, (2) is likely to cause more confusion than clarity.
If you're going to do new things, I think it's better to
select a standard new thing, rather than define a non-standard
extension to a standard.

Cheers,
Geoff

w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 10/08/2003 05:10:28 PM:

> 
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 6:25 PM
> > To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Geoffrey M Clemm'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: How to use DTDs, or not to (was: RE: ACL and 
lockdiscovery)
> >
> > ..
> >
> > Sure, but you could also say the allowable content model for
> > 'response' element is ANY.  I will attempt to make this clearer
> 
> We could, but we shouldn't. The spec should use ANY if and only if it
> assigns a meaning to ANY type of content. This is the case for <prop> 
(what
> ever child element you find, it identifies a property) or 
<resourcetype>. It
> is not the case for <response>.
> 
> > with English alongside the regular DTD although I still think
> > the spec could be clearer without something else formal or
> > semi-formal that worked better for us than DTDs.
> 
> Options:
> 
> 1) keep the DTDs as they are and clarify what they mean (that's what 
I've
> been trying to do),
> 
> 2) extend the DTD syntax somehow,
> 
> 3) switch to something that may allow to formally express what we need 
(as
> far as I understand, only Relax NG can do this).
> 
> If there's interest in option 3), I can test that. However, I have my
> serious doubts that people are willing to learn yet another syntax just 
to
> fix a very minor issue with the DTD notation.
> 
> Julian
> 
> 
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2003 17:39:13 UTC