- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:35:14 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@ebuilt.com>, "Matt Timmermans" <mtimmerm@opentext.com>
- Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, <uri@w3.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Roy T. Fielding > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:51 AM > To: Matt Timmermans > Cc: 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: Re: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 07:17:46PM -0500, Matt Timmermans wrote: > > Wow, that's annoying! > > > > It seems to me that fixing RFC2396 to allow an empty > opaque_part would be > > best, unless someone can recall any rationale for disallowing it in the > > first place. It looks quite arbitrary. > > More arbitrary than defining a new URI scheme *and* using xmlns just to > replace DAV: with D:? Just choose one, please. Why on earth would we With all due respect, I think this shows a misunderstanding of the role of XML namespaces in WebDAV. There are a lot of reasons for WebDAV to use XML namespaces - it's not just a syntactic matter whether to write DAV:multistatus or D:multistatus. First of all, without namespace declaration, an element named DAV:multistatus wouldn't be NS-wellformed. In addition, - WebDAV messages can be extended with "arbitrary" new extension elements, preferrably from other namespaces (just like other XML applications do), - WebDAV has a resource property model where a property is identified by the pair (namespace, element name). So, having XML namespaces in WebDAV has really nothing to do with the syntax for the prefix. Of course I do agree that choosing "DAV:" as namespace name was a bad idea. > want to change the definition of URI in 2396 to allow > > scheme: > > to be a valid URI? It isn't a valid URI. (Side remark: good old Microsoft is even using namespace names like "xml:"). Not according to the current grammar, right. However, if you look at [1] you'll find that although TBL made his comments about the DAV: URI scheme himself, he didn't catch the greater problem if not being a URI at all. I think this says something about the *intent* of RFC2396 :-) > As you said, RFC 2518 was based on an early draft of XML namespaces, and > it will need to be updated for that in any case (or stop using xmlns). Again, this is on the list of known and resolved issues. [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2001JanMar/0166.html>
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2001 03:35:37 UTC