RE: Minor issue in RFC2518bis05, DAV:href

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
>