W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: Issue: DAV_WITH_COLON_IS_NOT_A_URI

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:12:02 +0100
To: "Josh" <josh@bluescreen.org>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGELCDPAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Just don't invent a new URI scheme (it's not needed, and no semantics have
been defined by RFC2518 for it).

	"http://webdav.org/"

would have been perfect instead :-).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh [mailto:josh@bluescreen.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:31 AM
> To: Julian Reschke; Jason Crawford; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue: DAV_WITH_COLON_IS_NOT_A_URI
>
>
> This is an interesting point.  It makes me wonder what a better
> solution would have been ?  Im not suggesting invalidating the
> current scheme, but Im curious, what would be the right
> way to do it if we had the choice today ?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> To: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>; <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 2:44 AM
> Subject: Issue: DAV_WITH_COLON_IS_NOT_A_URI
>
>
> > Jason,
> >
> > I think we should add: "if a decision is made not to change the
> namespace
> > name for DAV, the new spec should explain that a) defining a new URI
> scheme
> > and b) using the scheme name as namespace name were bad design decisions
> and
> > shouldn't be repeated".
> >
> > (I mention this because I just found yet another example of this abuse,
> and
> > it seems to be inspired by WebDAV)
> >
> > Julian
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2002 05:12:35 GMT

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