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

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Larry Masinter
> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 9:16 AM
> To: 'Mark Baker'; 'Martin Duerst'
> Cc: 'Stefan Eissing'; 'WebDAV'; uri@w3.org
> Subject: RE: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency
>
>
> It seems like people have noted the following possibilities:
>
> * Change the URI spec to allow "DAV:" as a URI
> * Change the WebDAV spec to use something other than "DAV:" as
>    the namespace name
>
> but have left out the following possibilities:
>
> * Change the XML namespace spec to allow "scheme-name:" as
>   a namespace name, even though it isn't a legal URI

I mentioned this.

>   (This isn't such a big deal, since XML namespace names allow
>    IRIs with non-ASCII characters anyway, not really URIs)

I don't think they do.

"[Definition:] The attribute's value, a URI reference, is the namespace name
identifying the namespace. ..."

> * Declare that WebDAV bodies aren't really XML, because
>   the WebDAV spec has this little problem with the "DAV:"
>   namespace.

WebDAV could also define that the message bodies do not use namespaces, and
re-declare the namespace syntax so that "DAV:" is valid. However, I doubt
that anybody would want *that*. It would basically mean that on the long
run, an non-namespace aware XML processor is required, and that WebDAV
servers/clients would need to do namespace checking and mapping on their
own.

> The latter is the closest approximation to the 'truth', requires
> no incompatible changes to any specs or any other software, but
> means that (as happens to be true) anyone trying to apply generic
> XML software to WebDAV requests or responses has to be careful
> because of the use of the "DAV:" namespace.

I think you just argued for changing the WebDAV namespace (or to deprecate
it and add an alternative one).

Received on Sunday, 25 November 2001 04:47:18 UTC