RE: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency

Julian Reschke writes:

> I think this means that either RFC2396 or RFC2518 need to be fixed.

As Julian pointed out in an off-list message, it is unlikely for all DAV
applications to change just to add a (in this context) semantically
meaningless "/" or "//" sequence of octets. So, changing RFC 2518 doesn't
seem likely.

On the other hand, Larry Masinter points out in another off-list message
that the DAV URI scheme has rightly been criticized for being a flat
namespace. So, attempts to chance RFC2396 to institutionalize what many
perceive to be a poor design choice, is also likely to not be successful.

Larry Masinter pointed out that adding some language to RFC 2396 pointing
out that the DAV: URI scheme has some known quirks, and should not be
considered as good example, might fly. Whether such text would then cause
tools such as James Clark's JING validator to accept the DAV URI scheme is
unclear.

But, since WebDAV clients and servers are going to keep exchanging DAV:
scheme URIs across the wire for the forseeable future, from my perspective
the easiest change you can make to address your immediate problem, is to
modify the JING validator tool.

Frankly, compared to other items on the WebDAV plate, such as:

* addressing all the items on the RFC 2518 issues list
* finishing the bindings protocol
* finishing DASL
* finishing redirect references

This issue comes in a *very* distant last.

- Jim

Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 19:43:43 UTC