- From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:18:30 -0800
- To: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Accidentally caught by the spam filter. - Jim -----Original Message----- From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 7:52 PM To: Jim Whitehead Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; uri@w3.org Subject: [Moderator Action] Re: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency Hi Jim, > As a result, I recommend that the XML namespace recommendation be modified > to allow the use of just the URI scheme name as a namespace identifier, > perhaps limited to just members of the set of non-hierarchical URIs. It > seems clear to me that the XML namespace recommendation was written with > only the class of hierarchical URIs in mind, I can't see why you'd believe that. Namespaces are often URNs, for example. > and as a result it's not too > surprising that a glitch arose in the first use with non-hierarchical URIs. > Based on Julian's experience, and our experience with multiple WebDAV > implementations, accepting a URI scheme name as a namespace identifier would > codify existing, interoperable, practice. IMO, a URI scheme has identity, and so should be able to be identified by a URI reference. Perhaps a compromise here would be to treat "DAV:" as a relative URI reference. A 2518 revision could include the use of XML Base, or its own base-declaring mechanism, allowing future DAV specifications and processors to use URIs to evolve, while existing processors could be seen to be assuming a base URI. Thoughts? MB -- Mark Baker, CSO, Planetfred. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 17:18:48 UTC