Subject: RE: Issue: URI_URL, proposed changes

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:32:36 -0400

I support the "upgrade" from "URI" to "URL", whenever we can do so.
A URL is a URI, but a URI is not always a URL, so saying that something
is a URL has added meaning, and is worth saying whenever it is true and
doesn't conflict with accepted usage.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:42 PM
To: Lisa Dusseault; Webdav WG (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Issue: URI_URL, proposed changes

I'm not convinced that this change is important. A URL is a URI. We just
need to be clear about when a URI actually happens to be a *WebDAV* URI.

That being said:

>  - Continue to define the property name as a URI in section 16.

That section needs to be fixed anyway -- property names do not have URLs or
URIs. Period. This should be put onto the issues list (Jim?).

> ...
>
> I will not be able to get this done by the draft deadline
> (Monday) since I'm
> taking a long weekend to celebrate Canada Day ;)  But I'll gather the
> feedback after that and incorporate it later.

There maybe a deadline for draft submissions before the IETF meeting, but
does that mean that a new RFC2518bis draft needs to be submitted at all? I
would have hoped that before a new draft is submitted, the issues
*introduced* by the submission of the previous draft are actually resolved
(or at least discussed). See

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002JanMar/0185.html> and
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002JanMar/0186.html>