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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:21:17 +0100
To: <mtimmerm@opentext.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCEEPDDHAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Matt Timmermans
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1:18 AM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency
> 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.

Yes, it does.

> Note that even if IETF changed the DAV namespace, you still
> couldn't write a
> meaningful schema for WebDAV, because schema languages don't recognize the
> odd naming convention that RFC2518 adopts in 23.4.2 (Meaning of Qualified
> Names).

That's on the list of known and resolved WebDAV issues. This section is
going to be deleted.

> If anything is going to be done to change the basic XML structure
> of WebDAV,
> it would be a good time to fix 23.4.2 as well.
> What I really _don't_ want to see is everyone doing <dp:ropertyupdate
> xmlns:dp="DAV:p"> to get conformance to all 3 specs.

That would be a mess. The only sane position is that the XML namespaces
recommendation processing rules apply.
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2001 03:21:31 UTC

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