- 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>
> 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