Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by namespace preservation. Take the
example portion of some XML:

<h:html xmlns:xdc="http://www.xml.com/books"
        xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/HTML/1998/html4">
 <h:head><h:title>Book Review</h:title></h:head>
 <h:body>
  <xdc:bookreview>
   <xdc:title>XML: A Primer</xdc:title>

Is it the "http://www.xml.com/books" that gets preserved or the "xdc". What
I'm trying to ask is if would be OK if the above XML got transformed to

<h:html xmlns:foo-xdc="http://www.xml.com/books"
        xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/HTML/1998/html4">
 <h:head><h:title>Book Review</h:title></h:head>
 <h:body>
  <foo-xdc:bookreview>
   <foo-xdc:title>XML: A Primer</xdc:title>

I suspect you are saying this is not OK and the namespace prefix (ie the
xdc) needs to be preserved and not changed to foo-xdc. If this is what you
mean, then I am not sure what you mean by this is important for XSLT and XML
Schema, can you provide a bit more of an example.

Thanks for educating me on this - I'm not really going to end up with much
of an opinion on any of this but I am making sure I know enough to at least
understand the argument. Also, I suspect I might not be the only one of the
list that does not understand as much about XML as I wish I did :-)

Cullen


On 10/5/05 11:42 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> ...
>> Julian is going to start a thread on one hard issue some time soon.
>> ...
> 
> 
> OK, here we go. I'd like to discuss the following issue...:
> 
> <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10>
> 
> which reads..:
> 
> -- start --
> 
> 4.5: łThe value of a property appears inside the property name element.
>     The value may be any text, including valid XML.  When the value is
> structured as XML, namespaces that are in scope for that part of the
> XML document apply within the property value as well, and MUST be
> preserved in server storage for retransmission later. Namespace prefixes
> need not be preserved due to the rules of prefix declaration in XML.˛
> 
> 1) I think this needs to rephrased to use proper XML terminology, also
> 2) I think that namespace prefixes within the property value do need to
> be roundtripped.
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> łThe value of a property appears inside the property name element and
> may be any kind of well-formed XML content, including both text-only and
> mixed content. When the property value contains further XML elements,
> namespaces and namespace prefixes that are in scope for that part of the
> XML document apply within the property value as well, and MUST be
> preserved in server storage for retransmission later.˛
> 
> Update draft -05/06:
> 
> Issue 2 still needs to be resolved, the current text says: "Namespace
> prefixes need not be preserved due to the rules of prefix declaration in
> XML. This is incorrect because namespace prefixes *are* significant for
> certain XML vocabularies, such as XSLT and XML Schema. So independantly
> of what we decide for WebDAV, we should add an accurate statement about
> what that means for arbitrary XML content in properties.
> 
> 
> (Now in 4.4
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-07.html#rfc.se
> ction.4.4.p.5>))
> 
> -- end --
> 
> Proposed solutions:
> 
> (i) stick with the stated behaviour, but fix the explanation that
> misleadingly states that namespace prefixes are irrelevant,
> 
> or
> 
> (ii) state that namespace prefixes need to be preserved (such as in the
> text proposed by myself).
> 
> Further thought: depending on what standards status we aim for, we
> either need to think about what the protocol *should* be doing, or what
> current implementations actually do today. As far as I can tell, IIS
> doesn't preserve mixed content at all, while Apache/mod_dav does that
> (however it doesn't preserve prefixes; but maybe this can easily be
> fixed). I know that SAP Netweaver is preserving prefixes, and I
> *suspect* that Xythos does this as well (to be tested).
> 
> Feedback appreciated,
> 
> Julian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 19:17:52 UTC