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

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:15:23 -0500

Roy,

> In other words, I think that "scheme:" is only a valid identifier for the
> namespace if the scheme defines it as such.

What are you suggesting here?  Where would a scheme define it as such?
Would this require a change to 2396 that you'd support?  Or some place
else?

J.

---

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:49:06 -0800

> Would this require a change to 2396 that you'd support?  Or some place

If two or more independent implementations are doing something with the
protocol that is not allowed by the RFC, and rough consensus within the
working group is that those implementations are doing no harm, then the
protocol specification should change to accommodate them.  Whatever change
is made to 2396 will have to also take into account the history of
existing implementations.

That doesn't mean it will change any time soon, but we can add it to the
list of errata, which I need to compile anyway.

I still think it is incredibly stupid for the webdav examples to be using
"D:" as an xmlns, since the only thing that accomplishes is an unnecessary
dependency on XML namespaces.

....Roy

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:29:09 +0100

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roy T.
> Fielding
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 10:49 PM
> To: Jason Crawford
> Cc: [email-masked]; 'WebDAV'
> Subject: Re: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency
>
>

The WebDAV spec is using "D" as namespace *prefix*, with the prefix being
mapped to the namespace name "DAV:".

And yes, I'm with you that this wasn't a good idea.