RE: Fixed Section 1.1 language

Tim Bray wrote:

> Yes, but isn't this exactly the semantic of SHOULD - do it unless
> there's a reason not to?  Also I'd like to leave the language strong
> here because there does seem to be a hunger out there to invent them, cf
> WebDAV.

To clarify - WebDAV (RFC2518) invented *two* new URI schemes.

1) "DAV:" -- this one is used to identify elements (and properties) in the
RFC2518 namespace, and should never have been introduced. It's listed as a
registered namespace, but there's no official statement about what the
syntax of this namespace actually is.

2) "opaquelocktoken:" -- this URI schema is useful in that it allows to
build a URI from a UUID (AFAIK, there's currently no other *registered* URI
scheme or URN namespace capable of doing that). The issue with it is that
it's mis-named. It can be used to identify WebDAV lock tokens, but it can be
used to identify anything else that has a UUID as well.

In the meantime, let's not forget to bash those people *currently* using
unregistered URN namespaces, or *currently* repeating the "DAV:" design
mistake again. :-)



[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2000JanMar/0125.html>