Client comments? (was: [Bug 10] Round-tripping [...])

bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu wrote:

>------- Additional Comments From elias@cse.ucsc.edu  2005-12-02 09:34 -------
>Rough consensu reached on the 12/2 telecon wrt Julians proposed text, modulo
>some minor tweaks to the language ('clients will...') and remaining nit about
>handling of comments. Elias to raise issue regarding the handling of comments on
>the list.
>
Right, so regarding the handling of XML comments in property values...

My 10,000 ft. understanding of the issue is as follows:
* It would generally be preferred if comments were preserved
* Currently (most? all?) servers do not preserve comments
* The relevant XML specs allow for comments to be dropped by parsers and 
they do

Based on the above, it seems clear that 2518bis cannot require comments 
MUST be preserved, although the WG does want to say something that will 
encourage servers to attempt to do so. It would be nice to hear some 
input from client (and server) implementers on this issue. Do note that 
the obvious workaround for clients that want to force servers to 
preserve comments should put them in as CDATA, which will be preserved.

Open questions for further discussion:
* Do clients want or expect comments to be preserved?
* Would it be acceptable to server implementers for 2518bis to define 
the preservation of comments as a SHOULD and will they make the effort? 
Furhter, is this even possible given the libraries they are using?
* Will client implementers accept wording to the effect that servers MAY 
NOT preserve comments and, if they are truely required, mention the 
above workaround?
* Should 2518bis support different requirements for live vs. dead 
properties? This seems to make sense...



Thanks,
Elias

Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2005 18:53:36 UTC