- From: Joe Hildebrand <joe@cursive.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 02:01:47 -0600
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> 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 08:02:19 UTC