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 14:18:30 -0800
To: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AMEPKEBLDJJCCDEJHAMIAEEFDMAA.ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Accidentally caught by the spam filter.

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 7:52 PM
To: Jim Whitehead
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; uri@w3.org
Subject: [Moderator Action] Re: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI)
inconsistency


Hi Jim,

> 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,
> perhaps limited to just members of the set of non-hierarchical URIs. It
> seems clear to me that the XML namespace recommendation was written with
> only the class of hierarchical URIs in mind,

I can't see why you'd believe that.  Namespaces are often URNs, for
example.

> and as a result it's not too
> surprising that a glitch arose in the first use with non-hierarchical
URIs.
> Based on Julian's experience, and our experience with multiple WebDAV
> implementations, accepting a URI scheme name as a namespace identifier
would
> codify existing, interoperable, practice.

IMO, a URI scheme has identity, and so should be able to be identified
by a URI reference.

Perhaps a compromise here would be to treat "DAV:" as a relative URI
reference.  A 2518 revision could include the use of XML Base, or its
own base-declaring mechanism, allowing future DAV specifications and
processors to use URIs to evolve, while existing processors could be
seen to be assuming a base URI.  Thoughts?

MB
--
Mark Baker, CSO, Planetfred.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
mbaker@planetfred.com
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 17:18:48 GMT

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