W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: PATCH proposal

From: Joe Hildebrand <joe@cursive.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 02:01:47 -0600
Message-Id: <D8B3417B-F5A3-11D8-8BA1-000A959A17A6@cursive.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.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 

Joe Hildebrand
Denver, CO, USA
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 08:02:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:25 UTC