• To: "Gavin Thomas Nicol" <gtn@r...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: WebDAV (was Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
• From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@g...>
• Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 20:27:40 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <E16H8lI-0003jV-00@s...>

> From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@r...]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 8:05 PM
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  WebDAV (was Re:  Some comments on the
> 1.1 draft)
>
>
> On Thursday 20 December 2001 02:05 pm, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > We are really getting off-topic here.
>
> We are.
>
> > Yes. So what's the right way to address this? (a) have interoperability
> > tests, (b) document the issues, (c) work on the resolution.
> That's what the
> > Working Group does.
>
> I agree.
>
> There are two things on this thread I wanted to say:
>
>   1) That the WebDAV use of XML is ill-specified and opportunistic.

I'd say under-specified.

>   2) Clarity of specification is critical for interoperability.
>
> Your original email regarding custom properties caused my response,
> essentially saying (1). We've been debating WebDAV and (2) since then.
>
> I think WebDAV will get better (and I may get involved in it
> again), but it
> doesn't need XML to change to do so.

Yes, I agree.

I wasn't proposing a change for XML. What I was proposing was a shared
(SOAP, WebDAV, ...) and XML 1.0 compliant way to embed control codes into
text content (be it as PI or mixed element content). My point was that XML
does *not* to be changed to accomplish this.

Julian

• References:
  • Re: WebDAV (was Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: WebDAV (was Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
• Next by Date: Re: Lexical vs value spaces (re: Binary content and allowed characters in XML)
• Previous by thread: Re: WebDAV (was Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
• Next by thread: RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread