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

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 11:06:25 -0500

I think Julian is right.

The specs conflict.
It  sounds like the other specs are not going to change.  At least not
2396.
It does sound like some of us feel that what 2518 specifies isn't really
what should have been specified.

I'll support the suggestion that

1) We pick a second URI for our namespace.  I'll suggest
http://webdav.org/base.
2) We update the spec to use this new URI in the examples.
3) We deprecate  DAV: as the namespace URI in the spec.
4) ASAP implementors start accepting the new URI in addition to DAV:
5) Later implementors can start transmitting the new URI.

J.

------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569,   [email-masked]

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 17:27:51 +0100

Thanks, Jason.

We'd probably need to cover some more issues:

- how does a server decide which NS to use in a reply if the request didn't
contain a body (PROPFIND for instance),
- clarification, that <foo xmlns="DAV:"/> and <foo xmlns="newuri..." /> map
to *identical* properties,
- and probably some more details...

Julian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Crawford [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 5:06 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency
>
>
>
> I think Julian is right.
>
> The specs conflict.

---

From: Daniel Brotsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 08:30:37 -0800

1. I agree with Julian that we should make the 2518 revise be 
namespace-compliant.

2. I agree with Julian's suggestion that we table this for a few 
weeks while Lisa and others try again to get the "DAV:" string made 
an acceptable namespace.

3. If we can't get "DAV:" accepted, I agree with using Jason's suggestion:

>5) Later implementors can start transmitting the new URI.

FWIW, I believe that making this change *will* eventually cause older 
DAV clients and servers to stop working, which I think was something 
Lisa raised in a different way.  I believe this because I think 
eventually the cost-savings of using common namespace-processing 
technology will cause the hand-written 
backwards-compatibly-accept-DAV: patches to become too expensive, at 
which point they will go away.  So

4. I agree that we will need an indicator (in OPTIONS) of 
spec-revision, and I believe that servers which *don't* accept "DAV:" 
should indicate that they are not "DAV servers" using the indicators 
that older clients look for.

     dan
-- 
Daniel Brotsky, Adobe Systems
tel 408-536-4150, pager 877-704-4062
2-way pager email: <mailto:[email-masked]>