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

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

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:11:09 +0100
To: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, <distobj@acm.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBKJABLJNMLJELONBKCEOADBAA.stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Unfortunately, "DAV:" is no legal URI reference either. RFC 2396
explicitly forbids ':' in relative path's first segment...

//Stefan

> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 7:52 PM
>
> 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 Thursday, 22 November 2001 04:09:58 GMT

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