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

Re: PATCH proposal

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 07:26:15 -0400
To: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <OFD7CE5C7B.49FC486C-ON85256EFA.003E8BEF-85256EFA.003ED4A4@us.ibm.com>
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 GMT

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