RE: LABEL request only allows one set, one add...

It may be intentional, but I find it misleading.  XML documents can be
extended by extending the DTD.  The DTD doesn't help validate the XML
*according to the standard* unless it restricts the XML to that allowed by
the standard.

At least the English ought to be clarified.

lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 10:01 AM
> To: Lisa Dusseault; 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'DeltaV (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: LABEL request only allows one set, one add...
>
>
> Lisa,
>
> I think the usage of "ANY" is intentional (for RFC3253). The
> wording just
> states what DAV's XML enxtensibilty rules require -- the
> DAV:label element
> may contain a sequence of arbitrary elements, of which there
> may be only one
> DAV:add, DAV:set or DAV:remove element.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Lisa Dusseault
> > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 4:10 PM
> > To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'DeltaV (E-mail)'
> > Subject: RE: LABEL request only allows one set, one add...
> >
> >
> >
> > That's a great point, but it makes me realize I may be reading the
> > definition wrong.  I had assumed it to be possible to add one
> > label, remove
> > a second and set a third, all in the same request. This
> > assumption was based
> > on the following language:
> >
> >      The request body MUST be a DAV:label element.
> >
> >       <!ELEMENT label ANY>
> >       ANY value: A sequence of elements with at most one DAV:add,
> >       DAV:set, or DAV:remove element.
> >
> > Perhaps this is supposed to mean that only one child
> element can be inside
> > label, but "a sequence" does imply more than one.  If you
> mean to restrict
> > it to one only, then the definition should be:
> >
> > 	<!ELEMENT label (add | set | remove)>
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected]
> > > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Clemm, Geoff
> > > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 8:24 PM
> > > To: DeltaV (E-mail)
> > > Subject: RE: LABEL request only allows one set, one add...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I wouldn't say it was an oversight, but rather a use
> > > case that wasn't sufficiently common to warrant making
> > > the protocol more complicated to support it.
> > > In particular, you would have to define the semantics
> > > of what would happen if one part of the request would fail
> > > and the other would succeed, and how to marshall that
> > > error information.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Geoff
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 9:31 PM
> > > To: DeltaV (E-mail)
> > > Subject: LABEL request only allows one set, one add...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is it an oversight that the LABEL request only allows one
> > > set, one add, or
> > > one remove at a time (or one of each, but not two of any?)
> > >
> > > For example, say I wanted to add <label-name>foo</label-name> and
> > > <label-name>bar</label-name> to a version in one request.
> > > The definition of
> > > the LABEL request body is:
> > >
> > >   <!ELEMENT label ANY>
> > >   ANY value: A sequence of elements with at most one
> > >   DAV:add, DAV:set, or DAV:remove element.
> > >
> > >   <!ELEMENT add (label-name)>
> > >   <!ELEMENT set (label-name)>
> > >   <!ELEMENT remove (label-name)>
> > >
> > >   <!ELEMENT label-name (#PCDATA)> PCDATA value: string
> > >
> > > Since <add> can only contain one label-name, only one label
> > > can be added per
> > > each request.  I would have to issue two LABEL requests to
> > > add both foo and
> > > bar labels.
> > >
> > > Lisa
> > >
> >
> >
>
>