- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:45:15 +0100
- To: "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>, <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 Jim Whitehead > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 7:07 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; uri@w3.org > Subject: RE: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency > > > > > * WebDAV marshals "dav:" URIs that are the name of XML elements as a > > > {namespace} + {opaque_part} pair. So, for example, > > "dav:creationdate" is <D:creationdate xmlns:D="dav:">. > > > > RFC2518 says *nothing* about URIs in the DAV: URI scheme. RFC2518 itself > > never says that an element name or a property "has" a URI. > > Section 18 clearly states that "The property names and XML > elements in this > specification are all derived from the base URI DAV: by adding a suffix to > this URI, for example, DAV:creationdate for the 'creationdate' property." > > Now, we've had discussion on the WebDAV list to move away from this > position, and more towards the {namespace identifier} + {name} position > embedded within the XML namespace draft. This strikes me as a good thing. > > ... I just notice that the ACL spec says: 14 IANA CONSIDERATIONS This document uses the namespace defined by [RFC2518] for XML elements. All other IANA considerations mentioned in [RFC2518] also applicable to WebDAV ACL. So maybe this needs to be clarified. We don't want a new spec to normatively refer to a deprecated section of RFC2518, right?
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 15:46:10 UTC