- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:28:35 +0200
- To: "Stanley Guan" <stanley.guan@oracle.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Stanley Guan > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:41 PM > To: Julian Reschke; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: Re: rfc2518bis DAV DTD (was Re: How to use DTDs, or not ...) > > > > Julian, > > See my comments inline! > > Thx, > > -Stanley > > ... > > > Last time was dicussed I was told that this will not allow new extension > > elements from the DAV: namespace. > > True. But, new DAV extension elements should be explicitly listed in > the "choice" component. So, any bogus element in DAV: namespace > can be caught. How does that help? If a recipient validates a message based on a RFC2518bis-based XML Schema, and draft-ietf-webdav-redirect-ref protocol extends a particular element, these messages will not be valid according to the Schema *without* modifying the schema. The point of extensibility is that old components continue to work with extended messages *without* modification. > I thought we want to be loose on what can be allowed at element > level. Within each element, don't we want all attributes to be > explicitly spelt out? Why do we need arbitrary attributes to be > allowed on any specific DAV: element? Because that's allowed now. > ... Regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2003 03:31:45 UTC