W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2003

lock token URI schemes, RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-03.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:15:55 +0100
To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMEDHGMAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:26 AM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-03.txt
>
>
> ...
>
> > 5) Section 6.3, p3
> >
> > Replace
> >
> > "However resources are free to return any URI scheme so long as it meets
the
> > uniqueness requirements."
> >
> > by
> >
> > "However servers are free to use any IETF-registered URI scheme so long
as
> > it meets the uniqueness requirements."
>
> I'd vote for leaving the old text.

Hmmm.

Do we disagree on

a) the fact that it must be registered, or

b) whether or not it needs to be stated?

For a), my answer is that unless it is registered, it by definition can't
meed the uniqueness requirements.

For b), my answer is that I've seen servers inventing their "ad hoc"
schemes, and this is exactly I want to warn about.

See also:

<http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-scheme>:

"While "myscheme:blort" is a URI that satisfies the syntactic constraints of
[RFC2396], if "myscheme" is not registered, you are not guaranteed that
somebody else isn't already using it for something else."

> ...

Regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 14 March 2003 09:16:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:03 GMT