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

Re: BIND issue 3.2_example, was: Comments on bind-08

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:58:36 +0100
Message-ID: <41AE226C.8030404@gmx.de>
To: ejw@cs.ucsc.edu
CC: "'WebDAV (WebDAV WG)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Jim Whitehead wrote:
> Julian writes:
> 
> 
>>3.2.1  Example for DAV:parent-set property
> 
> 
> *snip*
> 
> 
>>      <parent-set xmlns="DAV:">
>>        <parent>
>>          <href>/CollX</href>
>>          <segment>x.gif</segment>
>>        </parent>
>>        <parent>
>>          <href>/CollX</href>
>>          <segment>y.gif</segment>
>>        </parent>
>>      </parent-set>
> 
> 
> Seems to me the href should hold a fully qualified URL, since other hrefs in
> the specification do this as well.

It may hold whatever RFC2518 defines for DAV:href (we probably should 
let the DTD fragment refer to RFC2518, section 12.3, right?). RFC2518 
relies on RFC2068, section 3.2.1, which allows both absoluteURI and 
relativeURI.

> PS -- While we're on the subject, I'll hold this up as an example of the
> kind of interpretation difference reasonable implementers can make of
> language that seems perfectly clear (and this is *much* more simple than the
> syntax for If headers).

I don't see the issue here. Lots of WebDAV servers return relativeURIs 
in DAV:href elements, and as far as I can tell, this is no problem at 
all. Please explain :-)

Best regards, Julian


-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2004 19:59:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:51 UTC