Lists Home |
Date Index |
> From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 8:05 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] WebDAV (was Re: [xml-dev] 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.