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

RE: WebDAV and namespaces

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:23:45 -0700
To: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <003001bdf191$20ee9320$d115c380@galileo.ics.uci.edu>
> Section 24.4 defines namespaces according to a very old draft of XML
> namespaces. In particular, it still uses a PI for the namespace
> specification. Is there a plan to update that section with respect to
> the current namespace specification? (at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xml-names)  It would seem inappropriate to
> demand conformance to this outdated spec (the first paragraph of 24.4.1
> requires this conformance).

You are correct -- Section 24.4 is currently out of date w.r.t. the current
XML Namespaces proposal. However, the current XML Namespace proposal is only
a W3C Working Draft, and is not yet completely stable. While I don't expect
there to be massive changes to the XML Namespaces spec. between now and its
final approval, there will be some changes, and hence I am loathe to update
the DAV draft until XML Namespaces are finalized.

But, it is my recommendation that the WebDAV Distributed Authoring protocol
be updated to reflect the new XML Namespaces draft once it is approved, or
near approval. Once it is at Proposed Recommendation status, I'll feel
comfortable moving forward.

But, I'm also unwilling to have approval of the WebDAV Distributed Authoring
protocol be held up by the XML Namespaces work.  This raises some issues on
how exactly the revision of the WebDAV Distributed Authoring specification
will occur.  There are many possible cases here -- I prefer to wait until
the XML Namespaces draft proceeds to Proposed Recommendation before
committing to any particular course of action.

If I were implementing the WebDAV Distributed Authoring protocol, ideally I
would make sure I could understand both types of XML Namespace.

> Also, the spec does not explicitly discuss the fact that "DAV:" is a
> valid URI that has been reserved for DAV. It implies it when it
> discusses each element, but it would seem appropriate that if DAV is
> going to treat the (short) string "DAV:" as a URI, then it should call
> that out explicitly.

Section 17, "IANA Considerations" clearly states that we are defining a new
URI scheme, and that it has been reserved for use by WebDAV.

- Jim
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 1998 21:37:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:18 UTC