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: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cs.ucsc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:10:12 -0800
Message-Id: <200412012010.iB1KAKHK021864@cats-mx1.ucsc.edu>
To: "'WebDAV \(WebDAV WG\)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

After refreshing my memory on relative URL calculation, I now agree the
example is right. Is there anyplace in the DAV specifications where we state
what URL should be used as the base URL for relative URL calculation? I
don't think this is in 2518 anyplace. Did this make it into 2518bis?

- Jim


> > 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 :-)
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2004 20:11:19 UTC

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