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

Re: WebDAV and namespaces

From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 20:35:19 -0700
Message-ID: <361AE177.2E76225A@lyra.org>
To: ejw@ics.uci.edu
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Jim Whitehead wrote:
> ...
> You are correct -- Section 24.4 is currently out of date w.r.t. the current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.

I would submit that a massive change has occurred (moving from a
PI-based namespace definition to an attribute-based system). This kind
of disparity can't really be a Good Thing(tm).

Nevertheless, I do understand the feeling of not wanting to change
something that will simply change again. However, moving it from about
20% to 90% of "correct" (before final approval of DAV) seems better, if
this is a possible option.

> 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.

Cool... I'm glad that an update will occur at some point. I'll just hold
out hope/argument for sooner rather than later :-)

> 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.

I can understand this. Doesn't a revision require a completely new RFC?
Also, during this revision process, wouldn't the whole thing bog down
because people would say, "hey... it's being revised. Let's get our pet
features in on this round!" ?

Would it be very disruptive to the current approval process to cut/paste
a new section in? Or is it a matter of somebody needing to spend time
(which is usually non-existent :-) to re-author that section?
[ I'm not very clueful about the mechanics of the process here and what
disruption might occur ]

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

"icky" is a good word here. :-)

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

Ah. I had missed that (sorry). Thanks for the pointer.

thx,
-g

--
Greg Stein (gstein@lyra.org)
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 1998 23:37:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:48 GMT