- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@ebuilt.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:57:54 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Cc: Matt Timmermans <mtimmerm@opentext.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, uri@w3.org
> > 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. Well, that's the only example I've seen in use. > First of all, without namespace declaration, an element named > DAV:multistatus wouldn't be NS-wellformed. In addition, Should I take that to mean only namespaces can have ":" in the tag name? That would explain a lot. > - WebDAV messages can be extended with "arbitrary" new extension elements, > preferrably from other namespaces (just like other XML applications do), Yes, but those will presumably be in another (well-formed) namespace. > - WebDAV has a resource property model where a property is identified by the > pair (namespace, element name). Isn't it reasonable to have a default namespace in the property model? > So, having XML namespaces in WebDAV has really nothing to do with the syntax > for the prefix. I didn't say it did. I said that treating DAV: as both a namespace and a URI scheme is wrong (and confusing). The reasons for doing so at the time were because xmlns was being developed (slowly) at the same time as WebDAV. > 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. Then it sounds to me like the xmlns attribute does not contain a URI. It contains a URI prefix. > 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 :-) Yeah, it says that we never considered that someone would try to use the grammar incorrectly within a specification. We naturally assume that people want the value to be a URI if they say it contans a URI. > > 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> I don't see that as being resolved, unless the WG is going to bite the bullet and follow Tim's recommendation. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2001 14:01:10 UTC