- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:38:01 +0200
- To: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Ted Hardie wrote: > ... > opaquelocktoken is defined in 2518, at least if I am reading the URI scheme > registrations at IANA correctly. Are you planning to update 2518? If so, No. > do you plan to change the generation reference from the UUID reference > (ISO 11578) to something else? As it stands now, I would expect > implementations to treat to tokens as equivalent if the UUID would > be equivalent. Well, the BIND spec allows *any* URI scheme. We can't expect recipients of DAV:resource-id properties to be aware of special comparison rules for specific URI schemes. So the simplest way to achieve interoperability is to specify one specific comparison that can be implemented by everybody without any knowledge of the various levels of URI equivalence (see RFC2396bis). Note that this is the same problem as in XML Namespaces and in Atom, thus the same solution. > Note as well that equivalence of the scheme name (Opaquelocktoken vs. > opaquelocktoken) is different to the equivalence of the token. 2396bis > defines the scheme as case-insensitive, even though the canonical > form is lower case. Yes. That's why we want to keep this simple (if the simplest solution works, why choose a different one?). Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 20 September 2004 23:38:41 UTC