W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Issue: PROP_ATTR

From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:26:33 -0700
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Message-ID: <20010414172633.Y31832@lyra.org>
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 12:24:00PM +0200, Julian F. Reschke wrote:
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Amsden
> > Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 12:21 AM
> > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> > Subject: Re: Issue: PROP_ATTR
> >
> > I agree with Greg. One clarification. The property name may need a
> > namespace too. In this case, the usual XML rules should apply. Define a
> > namespace for the name. WebDAV specifies what this means: replace the
> > namespace prefix with it namespace value and concatenate it to
> > the front of
> 
> Which contradicts the namespace spec and as far as I understand will be
> removed from the RFC. Namespace name and local name NEVER should be
> concatenated

Actually, it doesn't contradict the namespace spec. The spec is silent on
the issue of how to handle the URI and the localpart when used as an
identifier or key. In practice, everybody uses them as a tuple. However,
before this practice was really "observed", RFC 2518 took the position of
concatenation.

[ the WebDAV final draft went to the RFC Editor before XML Namespaces were
  finalized, and certainly before standard practices were identified ]

> (that is, without well-defined delimiters), they are a pair,
> that's it (see issue "XML_NS").

Yes, RFC 2518 will be changing to that interpretation for a number of
reasons.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2001 20:24:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:56 GMT