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: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:32:19 -0800
Message-Id: <200412031732.iB3HWPbV026871@cats-mx3.ucsc.edu>
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "'WebDAV \(WebDAV WG\)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

I think this issue can be closed for the BIND specification -- if it's to be
pointed out clearly anywhere, it is in the 2518bis.

- Jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 12:30 AM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: ejw@cs.ucsc.edu; 'WebDAV (WebDAV WG)'
> Subject: Re: BIND issue 3.2_example, was: Comments on bind-08
> 
> Julian Reschke wrote:
> >> 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.
>  > ...
> 
> Do we need to clarify the source of DAV:href's definition 
> somewhere in 
> BIND? Alternatives seem to be:
> 
> - explicitly mention it in the Terminology section,
> 
> - add a comment to each DTD fragment using it.
> 
> I personally feel that we don't need (for instance, RFC3744 
> doesn't seem 
> to do it either), so unless somebody speaks up, I'll consider 
> this one 
> closed.
> 
> Julian
> 
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> 
Received on Friday, 3 December 2004 17:34:08 UTC

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