- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:25:38 +0100
- To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:26 AM > To: Julian Reschke > Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-03.txt > > ... > > > 19) Section 9.3 > > > > Language describing the process of relative URI resolution should go. > > I actually like it telling me (the reader) this explicitly. > > > 23) Section 12 > > > > Again, an attempt to define relative URI resolution. Don't do that, just > > refer to RFC2396 and say that URIs in a multistatus response are resolved > > against the request URI. > > I do agree that it should not be described more than once in 2518. A reference to > a single place in the same document is fine with me. OK, no matter what we do, there should only be *one* place in the spec describing it. The choices that I see are 1) we just define that RFC2396-defined relative URI resolution takes place (also defining what the base URL is in each case), 2) 1) + descriptive text or 3) something different that is compatible to 1), but disallows some specific cases. I'd vote for 1) (because that's what RFC2518 says and I haven't seen any convincing reason to change it yet). > .. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 14 March 2003 09:25:46 UTC