Subject: RE: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:53:58 -0500

I think Jim makes a good case here.

It is particularly convenient that "foo:" is not
allowed as a relative URI, since otherwise the
use of "foo:" as the URI for the schema would
be ambiguous.

<humor> And this would retroactively give us a
much better answer for why "foo:" is not a legal
relative URI </humor>

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Whitehead [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 1:26 PM
To: Roy T. Fielding
Cc: 'WebDAV'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency

Roy Fielding writes:
> OTOH, I have found at least one other example -- the "about:" URL in
> Netscape Navigator -- so I guess this could be changed in a
> future revision of 2396.

A very principled case can be made for viewing the scheme namespace as a set
of URIs. This URI space identifies URI/URN/URL scheme names.

A scheme identifies a resource, the abstract concept of the particular
identifier of locator space. For "http" scheme URLs, the URI "http:"
identifies the abstract notion of locators for Web resources accessed via
the HTTP protocol. The "dav:" URI identifies the abstract concept of
property and XML element names used in the WebDAV family of protocols.

Put another way, there is a set of resources:

{{The abstract notion of locators for Web resources accessed via the HTTP
protocol},
{The abstract concept of property and XML element names used in the WebDAV
family of protocols},
{The abstract concept of locators for directory resources accessed via the
LDAP protocol},
{The abstract concept of identifiers for people's email inboxes}}

These resources map to the following URIs:

{"http:", "dav:", "ldap:", "mailto:"}

Once you accept that these are all valid URIs, then RFC 2396 can be viewed
as needing revision to remove the (artificial) constraints on URI syntax
that prevent the use of scheme name URIs.

- Jim

PS - So, yes, I am reversing my earlier opinion that RFC 2396 does not need
revision.

---

From: "David Lewis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:32:42 -0600

Hello,

I am a lurker on this list and I find it very interesting. We are developing
a solution for remote proofing for printers and publishers and I feel this
work has some potential in that market.

My first question is how do you think WebDav and remote proofing come
together?

Also due to my limited participation in this list I wondered how I might
switch to the digest version?

Thanks
David Lewis
President

Lucid Dream Software, Inc.

_________________________________________________
TIFF/ITflow for producing TIFF/IT and Scitex Brisque formats
DCSflow for producing DCS 2 files
PRINTflow to convert Delta job to PostScript stream for other devices
Thermal Compositor to convert color Delta job into a single separation
Grayscale Delta job for Dylux
OnTimeProof completely automated remote proofing solution for Delta
Harlequin-Delta Out an Output plugin for the Harlequin Rip to create Delta
jobs. This plugin can also be configured with Harlequin TrapMaster, their
brand new raster trapping software. This allows you to configure a Harlequin
station as an Offline Delta station.

www.luciddream.com [email-masked] 847-202-8424