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

RE: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:36:26 -0800
To: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AMEPKEBLDJJCCDEJHAMIAECNDMAA.ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Accidentally caught by the spam filter.

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:31 AM
To: julian.reschke@gmx.de; ejw@cse.ucsc.edu; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org;
uri@w3.org
Subject: [Moderator Action] RE: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI)
inconsistency


> > As a result, I recommend that the XML namespace 
> recommendation be modified
> > to allow the use of just the URI scheme name as a namespace 
> identifier,

The interpretation of a URI scheme prefix as a valid
URI also makes sense from the viewpoint of RDF (at least
to me ;-) in that otherwise, one has no way to make
statements about the URI scheme itself.

The same is true for a URN Namespace.

Thus, "DAV:", "http:", "urn:", and "urn:issn:" should all
be considered valid URIs. Not necessarily valid in terms
of the individual schemes themselves, but in terms of the 
semantics assigned to those prefixes by RFC2396 and RFC2141.

I.e. "http:" is not a valid HTTP URL but it is a valid URI
denoting the HTTP URL scheme.

> I doubt that anybody is going to touch XMLNS,

No need to touch XMLNS. If the above are URIs, then you
can use them as namespace URI refs.

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 12:36:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:59 GMT