On 1/23/2012 8:52 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Personally I don't see any obvious reason for deciding that svn
> property names can be, of all things, "any XML name" --- the fact our
> wire protocol uses XML need not ripple into our public API; ..
I'm getting sleeping and I'm heading to bed, but I just wanted to add
that you make two separate points there, and on their own they are
completely valid. If we were sitting down writing the Subversion
Specification (I mean the hypothetical specification that in some
perfect world was written before any implementations), I would be
wholeheartedly agreeing with you on both counts. Very well put.
But since there are implementations already in the wild, I'm a bit
biased as well as disgruntled over all this "erroneous" data the DAV+SVN
client allowed me to create. Even if we ignore my case, I wonder if
there might be other users who might become infuriated if we made
DAV_SVN suddenly started rejecting their applications which had worked
for years. So I'm wondering if expanding the client's idea of valid
property names is the lesser of two evils.
>> 2. That there be a public specification that rigorously defines
>> what makes a valid Subversion property name to prevent
>> contradictory implementation issues like this in the future.
> .. but +1 on deciding what a property name is and being consistent
> about it. (with the caveat of not breaking existing repositories,
> per r1235131)
Received on 2012-01-24 06:18:05 CET