Re: ID: draft-ietf-webdav-bind-05

Ted Hardie wrote:

> I think you're mistaking an ABNF change between 2396 and 2396bis for
> an architectural point.  If you go back to 1738, the predecessor to 2396,
> the schemepart's inclusion of *xchar clearly allows zero according
> to the rules of the BNF syntax it references from 822 (see 2.4 in
> RFC 822).


I was only mentioning that in 2001 (not 2002 as I realized) we found 
that the bare string "DAV:" isn't a legal URI according to RFC2396. This 
was discussed with Roy Fielding, and as a consequence RFC2396bis changes 

Anyway, this is really not relevant for BIND. BIND doesn't define any 
new namespaces in the "DAV:" scheme, it just puts more elements into the 
  XML namespace named "DAV:", which is already defined in RFC2518. Thus 
there's IMHO nothing that needs to change in BIND.

Best regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH -- -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 16:18:29 UTC