W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2001

RE: Last Call: Access Control Protocol

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 11:01:39 +0100
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@ebuilt.com>, "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Cc: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEONDGAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Roy T. Fielding
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 3:46 AM
> To: Jim Whitehead
> Cc: WebDAV
> Subject: Re: Last Call: Access Control Protocol
> Some general comments:
>  1) Why does every example use xmlns:D="DAV:"?  That seems to be
> a pointless
>     exercise in indirection that will ultimately lead to clients that
>     parse on D:whatever instead of the actual spec.  Besides, DAV itself
>     is an xmlns that needs to be defined somewhere.  If the goal is to
>     simply show that it is possible, then only one or two of the examples
>     should use the shorter short name.

I agree with the criticism to invent a new URI scheme in the first place.
But this happened three years ago (RFC2518), not for ACL.

It's true that

	<D:elementname xmlns:D="DAV:" />

is just one of many representations, but the fact that RFC2518 (as well)
always uses the same format doesn't seem to have produced non-interoperable
clients. The requirement is to parse requests and responses using a
namespace-aware XML processor. If you don't, you have a problem. If you do,
you won't care at all about the XML serialisation format.

Received on Saturday, 10 November 2001 05:02:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:24 UTC