W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1998

RE: Namespace consistency

From: Fisher Mark <fisherm@tce.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:32:16 -0500
Message-ID: <2C396693FBDED111AEF60000F84104A721BFAF@indyexch_fddi.indy.tce.com>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>I have been meaning to complain about this for a while but didn't because
>it seems to be trivial.  I was having a hard time imagining anyone being so
>picky as to insist on this point (and, perhaps, denying me the covetted
>"100 % Pure DAV" sticker for my server?) but perhaps it's better to face it
>now.  In fact, this very issue has been raised in some discussions internal
>to Xerox.  People have said to me "We would like to support DAV methods in
>this subtree but we don't want to support them on the root but the protocol
>says we MUST do it, so can we still use DAV?".  So Howie isn't the only one
>worrying about it.
>
>I say, strike the restriction.

Based on my experiences as a webmaster, I'd agree.  I really don't see any
prospect of webmasters wanting to have only root-based subtrees (like
<URL:http://www.foo.com/bar/>) be DAV-compliant.  DAV will work and play
better with others if it can be restricted to non-root-based subtrees.  Not
that some servers won't want to be set up using DAV for all document
management -- just that some (probably the majority) will not use DAV for
all document management, for various political/social/technical reasons.
> ==========================================================
> Mark Leighton Fisher          Thomson Consumer Electronics
> fisherm@indy.tce.com          Indianapolis, IN
> "Browser Torture Specialist, First Class"
> 
Received on Monday, 14 September 1998 13:32:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:47 GMT