Subject: Re: New RFC2518bis draft, XML_NOT_VALID

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:05:26 -0400

I think the current text could be improved by changing "legal XML may not"
to be "legal WebDAV XML might not".  This avoids the use of "may not" which
has a somewhat different meaning.  I'm suggesting inserting "WebDAV" there
just to be a bit clearer although I think one can improve on that
suggestion also.

"A DTD is provided in Appendix 1.  However, legal XML may not be valid
according to this DTD, because unknown XML elements may appear in WebDAV
syntax without making the syntax illegal."

becomes

"A DTD is provided in Appendix 1.  However, legal WebDAV XML might not be
valid according to this DTD, because unknown XML elements may appear in
WebDAV syntax without making the syntax illegal."

------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569,   [email-masked]

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:05:41 +0200

Actually,

things are worse.

Legal WebXML *will* not be valid according to the DTD. The reason being that
"legal WebDAV XML" uses elements in the "DAV:" namespace, while DTDs are
fundamentally incompatible with XML namespaces.

Julian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Jason Crawford
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 7:05 PM
To: Lisa Dusseault
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: New RFC2518bis draft, XML_NOT_VALID

I think the current text could be improved by changing "legal XML may not"
to be "legal WebDAV XML might not". This avoids the use of "may not" which
has a somewhat different meaning. I'm suggesting inserting "WebDAV" there
just to be a bit clearer although I think one can improve on that suggestion
also.

becomes