- 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>
> 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. Julian
Received on Saturday, 10 November 2001 05:02:18 UTC