kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> "Peter N. Lundblad" <peter@famlundblad.se> writes:
>>An aside: why limit property names to ASCII? Is there a reason other than
>>"it is simple for now"? Else, I'll file an issue about supporting the
>>whole Name production in XML 1.1. (Or do we have to stick to XML 1.0?)
>
> Yeah, I don't know why we're limiting property names to ASCII, except
> perhaps that it's easy to implement [...]
It's because, given that we were not able to define and implement the One True
Solution, it is better to be very restrictive at first (and have the option of
relaxing the rules later in a compatible manner) than to be unrestrictive and
let people end up with repositories containing names that don't work with
certain RA methods, etc.
The XML "Name" production does seem to be a reasonable definition that we might
want to choose for our property names. +1 to documenting and implementing it.
(I don't know the difference between XML 1.0 vs. 1.1, but the question of what
set of names we allow for our properties need not necessarily be related to the
set of Names that a particular version of XML defines. It just might be wise
to restrict ourselves to a (proper or improper) subset of XML Names to avoid
implementation difficulties - having to escape or encode the names, etc.)
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 26 11:57:55 2004