- From: Judith Slein <slein@wrc.xerox.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 07:18:58 PDT
- To: Jim Davis <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: slein@wrc.xerox.com, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, frystyk@w3.org, paulle@microsoft.com, lawrence@agranat.com
Yes, I can change the examples to do that. I think this affects only the examples, not anything substantive said in the specification. I don't think we need to say anything about whether clients should use the Mandatory Extensions namespace syntax or not -- they make their own decisions about that based on the Mandatory Extensions spec, whether they are using multiple extensions in the request, whether they anticipate other extension headers being added to the request somewhere along the way, etc. At 01:44 PM 6/9/98 PDT, Jim Davis wrote: >Comments on the excellent draft, ctd.. > >If you are going to use the syntax proposed in the ID "Mandatory Extensions >in HTTP" for the method names, you may as well also use the namespace >syntax they propose (even though it's ugly) where the Man header specifies >not only the URI of the extension set but also a unique (for each extension >set within the current method call) prefix for the headers added by that >extension set. So e.g. > >M-PUT /~whitehead/dav/ HTTP/1.1 >Host: www.ics.uci.edu >Man: "DAV:Coll-headers"; ns=259- >259-Referential-Member: spec08.ref >259-Ref-Target: http://www.ics.uci.edu/... >259-Ref-Integrity: T >259-Position: After requirements.html > >This will ensure that there is no collision with names of headers >introduced by orthogonal extensions. > >Note also that Nielsen et al recommend that any header-prefix be at least >three digits. > > > Name: Judith A. Slein E-Mail: slein@wrc.xerox.com Internal Phone: 8*222-5169 Fax: (716) 422-2938 MailStop: 105-50C Web Site: http://www.nde.wrc.xerox.com/users/Slein/slein.htm
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 1998 10:53:03 UTC