Re: rfc2518bis issue 03-C03 - DAV: Scheme

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>>2.	The form "DAV:" is not an acceptable form for a URI 
>>according to the URI format specifications, although the 
>>editors of the URI specification revision have accepted the 
>>request to allow that form.
> 
> 
> I would be surprised to hear this -- I'd like to see what 

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2001OctDec/0193.html>

It should also be mentioned in:

<http://www.webdav.org/wg/rfcdev/issues.htm>

> makes it unacceptable.  I agree it's not well specified, so to

It isn't an absolute URI because absolute URIs have non-empty 
scheme-dependant parts. It's not a URI reference either because it 
contains an unescaped ":".

Again - see the entries on the issues lists for RFC2396 and RFC2518.

> believe it's acceptable means you have to assume that the 
> definition for the DAV: scheme allows a null URI after the
> scheme part.  But why would you assume that would be 
> unacceptable? Most URI schemes require something after the
> scheme name, but clearly DAV: doesn't.

No, no, that's incorrect. The syntax of "DAV:" URIs MUST comply to what 
the URI specification says (see above).

> That's a good point.  It *is* possible to create new URIs
> under the DAV: scheme name, now that it's defined.  E.g. we
> could have defined "DAV:deltav", "DAV:bindings", etc as
> namespaces for various extension elements.  There isn't anything
> written down, however, about how to construct valid URIs using
> the DAV: scheme.  

...because we are too lazy, and this doesn't seem to be an issue. What 
we *should* state is: only WebDAV WG standard tracks documents may 
define/use new URIs in the DAV: scheme (that's the "change control" part).

Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Sunday, 2 November 2003 17:28:04 UTC