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

RE: rfc2518bis issue 03-C03 - DAV: Scheme

From: Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:41:15 -0800
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>
Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FFEPLLNFAHGBKNENFGPAOEGBDEAA.dennis.hamilton@acm.org>

Lisa,

My reading of this is the same as Julian's.  The URI RFC stipulates the admissible syntax of URIs, with a modest variety of flavors.  None of the rules currently allow "DAV:" as a valid URI form.  And the editor of their -bis document has accepted a modification that allows the empty part. 

Julian,

I think a bigger part of the change control has to do with use of a DAV URI as a namespace identifier.  Something similar should be stated in that respect, along with the condition on who gets to create URIs in the DAV scheme.  I think that means I am also aligned with what you say about defining the "namespace" in your other note with this subject line.

-- Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 14:27
To: Lisa Dusseault
Cc: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: Re: rfc2518bis issue 03-C03 - DAV: Scheme


Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>>2.	The form "DAV:" is not an acceptable form for a URI 
>>according to the URI format specifications, although the 
>>editors of the URI specification revision have accepted the 
>>request to allow that form.
> 
> 
> I would be surprised to hear this -- I'd like to see what 

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2001OctDec/0193.html>

It should also be mentioned in:

<http://www.webdav.org/wg/rfcdev/issues.htm>

> makes it unacceptable.  I agree it's not well specified, so to

It isn't an absolute URI because absolute URIs have non-empty 
scheme-dependant parts. It's not a URI reference either because it 
contains an unescaped ":".

Again - see the entries on the issues lists for RFC2396 and RFC2518.

[ ... ]

>  There isn't anything
> written down, however, about how to construct valid URIs using
> the DAV: scheme.  

...because we are too lazy, and this doesn't seem to be an issue. What 
we *should* state is: only WebDAV WG standard tracks documents may 
define/use new URIs in the DAV: scheme (that's the "change control" part).

Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Sunday, 2 November 2003 19:41:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT