W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: ID: draft-ietf-webdav-bind-05

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:23:44 -0700
Message-Id: <p06110404bcff7a90ae7c@[129.46.227.161]>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Joe Hildebrand <joe@cursive.net>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Julian,
	I didn't say "dav:" was a URI, I said it was a URI
_scheme_; see the URI scheme assignments maintained by
IANA I referenced below.  The namespaces used in the bind
draft fall into the DAV: uri scheme if you require
they begin "dav:".
			regards,
				Ted Hardie


At 8:16 PM +0200 6/23/04, Julian Reschke wrote:
>Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>>At 10:53 PM -0400 6/22/04, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>1.1
>>>  - 'DAV:' is a namespace URI, not a namespace name.
>>
>>
>>I think it might be more accurate to say that dav: is a URI
>>scheme.  See http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.
>>So the following statement in 1.1: "all XML elements defined by this
>>specification use the XML namespace name "DAV:" might be
>>re-written as "The XML namespaces used in this document all
>>use the DAV: uri scheme".
>>
>>Just my personal opinion,
>>             regards,
>>                 Ted Hardie
>
>Ted,
>
>as a matter of fact, "DAV:" isn't a URI at all (as RFC2396 doesn't 
>allow empty scheme-specific parts). Only RFC2396bis will actually 
>make "DAV:" a legal URI.
>
>You're proposed change however is inaccurate -- the specification 
>itself  uses a single namespace, and that namespace has the name 
>"DAV:". So I think there's really nothing that needs to change.
>
>Best regards, Julian
>
>
>--
><green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 14:24:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:06 GMT