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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 17:27:51 +0100
To: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEGADIAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Thanks, Jason.

We'd probably need to cover some more issues:

- how does a server decide which NS to use in a reply if the request didn't
contain a body (PROPFIND for instance),
- clarification, that <foo xmlns="DAV:"/> and <foo xmlns="newuri..." /> map
to *identical* properties,
- and probably some more details...

Julian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 5:06 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency
>
>
>
> I think Julian is right.
>
> The specs conflict.
> It  sounds like the other specs are not going to change.  At least not
> 2396.
> It does sound like some of us feel that what 2518 specifies isn't really
> what should have been specified.
>
> I'll support the suggestion that
>
> 1) We pick a second URI for our namespace.  I'll suggest
> http://webdav.org/base.
> 2) We update the spec to use this new URI in the examples.
> 3) We deprecate  DAV: as the namespace URI in the spec.
> 4) ASAP implementors start accepting the new URI in addition to DAV:
> 5) Later implementors can start transmitting the new URI.
>
> J.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 23 November 2001 11:27:57 GMT

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