- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@ebuilt.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 17:51:27 -0800
- To: Matt Timmermans <mtimmerm@opentext.com>
- Cc: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 07:17:46PM -0500, Matt Timmermans wrote: > Wow, that's annoying! > > It seems to me that fixing RFC2396 to allow an empty opaque_part would be > best, unless someone can recall any rationale for disallowing it in the > first place. It looks quite arbitrary. More arbitrary than defining a new URI scheme *and* using xmlns just to replace DAV: with D:? Just choose one, please. Why on earth would we want to change the definition of URI in 2396 to allow scheme: to be a valid URI? It isn't a valid URI. As you said, RFC 2518 was based on an early draft of XML namespaces, and it will need to be updated for that in any case (or stop using xmlns). ....Roy
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 20:54:17 UTC