Hi,
I just read a thread on the mailing list that seems to be the one you are
referring to.
The main problem (slightly unrelated) I see there is that the claim is made
that WebDAV properties are identified by URIs. This is *not* the case.
WebDAV properties are identified by QName (qualified name), which is a pair
of a URI reference and an XML name.
The current situation (for which I raised the bug report) simply is that the
XML content sent by subversion isn't stricly NS-wellformed XML. This could
be avoided by mapping "svn:" to something else when present in XML content,
or to use something else in the first place.
It escapes me why Subversion tries to define a URI scheme just for the
purpose identifying it's "own" properties (I have only looked at Subversion
from a WebDAV p.o.v., so I may be missing something). I don't see how the
IETF would register a new URI scheme for this purpose (would it be tried).
Julian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: issues@subversion.tigris.org [mailto:issues@subversion.tigris.org]
> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 10:15 PM
> To: reschke@tigris.org
> Subject: [Issue 701] - Subversion properties live in an XML namespace
> called "svn:"
>
>
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=701
>
> kfogel@tigris.org changed:
>
> What |Old Value |New Value
> ==================================================================
> ================
> Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> Resolution| |INVALID
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
>
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From kfogel@tigris.org 2002-05-11
> 13:15 -------
> Did you actually go back and search the old dev archives like I
> mentioned? :-)
>
> Leave this issue closed (unless you saw an actual behavioral bug
> resulting from it) please, and discuss on the dev list if you
> feel it's important. But first read the old discussion.
>
> The question of what constitutes a real "issue" is admittedly
> open to interpretation. However, since this hasn't actually
> caused a problem for users (and is unlikely to do so), and it *was*
> discussed at length, and settled, about two years ago, I don't
> see that any purpose is served by opening an issue, unless you're
> actually bringing something new to the discussion -- e.g., data
> that should have been considered in the previous discussion
> but wasn't.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat May 11 23:32:40 2002