- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:47:02 +0200
- To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Tim Bray wrote: > Yes, but isn't this exactly the semantic of SHOULD - do it unless > there's a reason not to? Also I'd like to leave the language strong > here because there does seem to be a hunger out there to invent them, cf > WebDAV. To clarify - WebDAV (RFC2518) invented *two* new URI schemes. 1) "DAV:" -- this one is used to identify elements (and properties) in the RFC2518 namespace, and should never have been introduced. It's listed as a registered namespace, but there's no official statement about what the syntax of this namespace actually is. 2) "opaquelocktoken:" -- this URI schema is useful in that it allows to build a URI from a UUID (AFAIK, there's currently no other *registered* URI scheme or URN namespace capable of doing that). The issue with it is that it's mis-named. It can be used to identify WebDAV lock tokens, but it can be used to identify anything else that has a UUID as well. In the meantime, let's not forget to bash those people *currently* using unregistered URN namespaces, or *currently* repeating the "DAV:" design mistake again. :-) [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2000JanMar/0125.html>
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2002 02:47:33 UTC