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

> From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Roy T.
> Fielding
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 10:49 PM
> To: Jason Crawford
> Cc: uri@w3.org; 'WebDAV'
> Subject: Re: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 04:15:23PM -0500, Jason Crawford wrote:
> >
> > Roy,
> >
> > > In other words, I think that "scheme:" is only a valid
> identifier for the
> > > namespace if the scheme defines it as such.
> >
> > What are you suggesting here?  Where would a scheme define it as such?
> > Would this require a change to 2396 that you'd support?  Or some place
> > else?
>
> If two or more independent implementations are doing something with the
> protocol that is not allowed by the RFC, and rough consensus within the
> working group is that those implementations are doing no harm, then the
> protocol specification should change to accommodate them.  Whatever change
> is made to 2396 will have to also take into account the history of
> existing implementations.
>
> That doesn't mean it will change any time soon, but we can add it to the
> list of errata, which I need to compile anyway.
>
> I still think it is incredibly stupid for the webdav examples to be using
> "D:" as an xmlns, since the only thing that accomplishes is an unnecessary
> dependency on XML namespaces.

The WebDAV spec is using "D" as namespace *prefix*, with the prefix being
mapped to the namespace name "DAV:".

And yes, I'm with you that this wasn't a good idea.