On 1/23/2012 8:23 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Sounds, then, like you're asking not for extending the set of valid
propnames but for enforcing the existing conventions?
No, the part about "...not asking for extending..." not a correct
characterization of what I'm requesting. I tried to be clear in the
first email:
I therefore request:
1. That the restriction in JavaHL svn_prop_name_is_valid() be
lifted to allow a Subversion property to be any valid XML name, and
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.
Sounds like you only zoned in on the "... if I'm voted down ... on
lifting the restrictions ..." part. I really don't know how I can be
plainer that what I listed above.
Garret
