RE: use of DAV namespace

I don't see a drop-dead problem with this, if we're going to allow, as
you say, that WebDAV XML cannot in general be validated.

The DASL use of DAV:and will be within DASL containers like
<DAV:basicsearch> (or is it simplesearch)?  Versioning will use it
within DAV:basicrsr I think.  There is sufficient context for it to be
clear which is meant.

Actually, it may be even better than that, if we're careful:  if we can
make sure the meaning of the versioning DAV:and consistent with the DASL
DAV:and.

In general, you point out a really useful consideration, which is to be
aware of what XML properties all other DAV WGs are defining.  It's too
late to wait until they're proposed standards, when it's so easy to deal
with it earlier.

Lisa Lippert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@coursenet.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 4:02 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: use of DAV namespace
> 
> 
> The Versioning Extensions (Kaler et al, Jan 20, 1999) draft defines a
> number of XML elements (some are properties, others just 
> elements) , all in
> the DAV: namespace.  Of these, at least three conflict with elements
> defined by DASL.  (DAV:and, DAV:or, and  DAV:not). 
> 
> Thus It would not be possible to construct a single DTD for 
> WebDAV with
> both versioning and DASL.  I understand that, in general, 
> WebDAV XML can't
> be validated (because we allow undefined elements to be used, for
> extensibility), still it seems bad if two different DAV extensions are
> incompatible.
> 
> I suggest that both extensions (DeltaV and DASL) used a new 
> namespace, at
> least for those elements they introduce.
> 
> Would it be possible to use DAV://versioning/ and DAV://dasl/ 
> respectively?
> 
> Besides the three conflicting elements, there are a number of 
> others that
> seem to me to have rather "generic" names, that is, I could 
> imagine other
> DAV extensions that might want to use these names.  I 
> understand that tag
> element names are not user visible, but still for the sake of 
> programmers
> it is useful to have meaningful names.  To avoid future 
> confusion, it might
> be better to put all new versioning elements in a new namespace.
> 
> The potentially conflicting elements names include:
> 
> DAV:comment
> DAV:report
> DAV:basetime
> DAV:inheritancetype
> 
> I've only just joined the deltaV list, sorry if this has 
> already come up.
> 
> regards
> 
> Jim Davis
> 
> please reply to jrd3@alum.mit.edu, despite the Reply-To 
> address in the header.
>