I agree with Joe, especially for reason #2 (i.e. this isn't a WG doc). Cheers, Geoff Joe wrote on 08/24/2004 04:01:47 AM: > > I misunderstood. Do you think it is wrong to use the "DAV:" > > namespace? If you think it is wrong, please say so. I thought you > > said that the WG should agree to the use of the namespace, which is > > what we're doing. This is an explicit discussion on the mailing list > > about whether that's OK. > > > > I personally think it's OK but will replace the namespace if I get a > > bunch of objections. > > (in personal voice, not chair voice) > > I think it's probably best to use another namespace. > - I don't like DAV: to begin with :) > - This isn't a WG doc > - Given those two, I wouldn't want to set a precedent for others to go > throwing stuff into DAV: > > We've had the same problem with the jabber: namespaces in the XMPP > space. It's taken us a long time to get everyone to use namespace > URI's that they actually control in their protocols, but it's been well > worth the effort in terms of being able to do many more extensions in > parallel. > > -- > Joe Hildebrand > Denver, CO, USA > >Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 11:27:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:30 UTC