- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:29:09 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@ebuilt.com>, "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Roy T. > Fielding > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 10:49 PM > To: Jason Crawford > Cc: uri@w3.org; 'WebDAV' > Subject: Re: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 04:15:23PM -0500, Jason Crawford wrote: > > > > Roy, > > > > > In other words, I think that "scheme:" is only a valid > identifier for the > > > namespace if the scheme defines it as such. > > > > What are you suggesting here? Where would a scheme define it as such? > > Would this require a change to 2396 that you'd support? Or some place > > else? > > If two or more independent implementations are doing something with the > protocol that is not allowed by the RFC, and rough consensus within the > working group is that those implementations are doing no harm, then the > protocol specification should change to accommodate them. Whatever change > is made to 2396 will have to also take into account the history of > existing implementations. > > That doesn't mean it will change any time soon, but we can add it to the > list of errata, which I need to compile anyway. > > I still think it is incredibly stupid for the webdav examples to be using > "D:" as an xmlns, since the only thing that accomplishes is an unnecessary > dependency on XML namespaces. The WebDAV spec is using "D" as namespace *prefix*, with the prefix being mapped to the namespace name "DAV:". And yes, I'm with you that this wasn't a good idea.
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2001 17:30:22 UTC