- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:43:29 +0200
- To: <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Dennis, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve. On the one hand, we're trying to clarify that WebDAV messages MUST not be validated using DTDs. On the other hand, you're trying to come up with a clever way to enable DTD validation. As far as I understand, it will never work for arbitrary now legal WebDAV messages, so why bother? After all, the initial question was about whether we want to continue using DTD fragments to specify some constraints on WebDAV messages -- after all, this is what all published and soon-to-be published WebDAV-related specs do. So if there's an issue with that notation, we should fix just that, nothing more... In particular, if "fixing" the DTD notation essentially means to make it extremely complicated to read, this will be in fact contra-productive. > ... > <dav:propertyupdate xmlns:dav="DAV:"> > <dav:set> > <dav:prop> > <dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> > Dennis E. Hamilton > </dc:creator> > <dc:creator > xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> > Orcmid, junior nymph of the Orcan Conclave > </dc:creator> > </dav:prop> > </dav:set> > </dav:propertyupdate> Nit: that isn't a meaningful request. Each WebDAV property only can have a single value, so having it twice in propertyupdate will just result in the "last" value being set. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2003 10:43:33 UTC