- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:32:37 -0800
- To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Do you think that the ability to contain 'opaquelocktoken' URIs is the sole exception, or is it generally OK for href to contain non-HTTP URLs? I believe the latter would cause some problems among clients. And, is it always ok to have opaquelocktoken URIs in hrefs, or only in certain circumstances? lisa > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:03 AM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: Minor issue in RFC2518bis05, DAV:href > > > > Hi, > > the definition for DAV:href was "updated". Previously it referred to > RFC2068, now it refers to RFC2616. This is incorrect because > RFC2616 is > about HTTP, while we need to reference RFC2396 (which defines general > URI syntax). > > Note that in WebDAV, the DAV:href element may contain non-HTTP URIs, > such as opaquelocktoken. > > Julian > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 >
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2004 12:32:28 UTC