- From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:23:44 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Joe Hildebrand <joe@cursive.net>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Julian, I didn't say "dav:" was a URI, I said it was a URI _scheme_; see the URI scheme assignments maintained by IANA I referenced below. The namespaces used in the bind draft fall into the DAV: uri scheme if you require they begin "dav:". regards, Ted Hardie At 8:16 PM +0200 6/23/04, Julian Reschke wrote: >Ted Hardie wrote: >> >>At 10:53 PM -0400 6/22/04, Joe Hildebrand wrote: >> >>> >>>1.1 >>> - 'DAV:' is a namespace URI, not a namespace name. >> >> >>I think it might be more accurate to say that dav: is a URI >>scheme. See http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes. >>So the following statement in 1.1: "all XML elements defined by this >>specification use the XML namespace name "DAV:" might be >>re-written as "The XML namespaces used in this document all >>use the DAV: uri scheme". >> >>Just my personal opinion, >> regards, >> Ted Hardie > >Ted, > >as a matter of fact, "DAV:" isn't a URI at all (as RFC2396 doesn't >allow empty scheme-specific parts). Only RFC2396bis will actually >make "DAV:" a legal URI. > >You're proposed change however is inaccurate -- the specification >itself uses a single namespace, and that namespace has the name >"DAV:". So I think there's really nothing that needs to change. > >Best regards, Julian > > >-- ><green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 14:24:25 UTC