[relax-ng] Fw: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency

[James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>]

I'm not sure what to do about this.  DAV probably won't get fixed because
there are lots of deployed systems happily using xmlns="DAV:", and the URI
spec probably won't get fix because most people seem to think that "DAV:" is
broken.  On the other hand with the RELAX NG spec as it is, a conforming
RELAX NG validator has to reject ns="DAV:".  Any ideas?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
To: <uri@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 4:31 AM
Subject: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency


> Hi.
>
> (1) RFC2518 (WebDAV) is based on XML + namespaces and has chosen to use
the
> namespace name "DAV:" to identify it's elements. Note that "DAV:" *is* a
> properly registered URI scheme (see [1])
>
> (2) The XML namespaces recommendation says that an XML namespace is
> identified by a URI reference as defined in RFC2396.
>
> (3) RFC2396 gives the following grammar for absolute URIs:
>
> absoluteURI   = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part )
> opaque_part   = uric_no_slash *uric
>
> "DAV:" doesn't seem to be a valid "opaque_part", because "opaque_part"
MUST
> start with "uric_no_slash", thus it may not be empty.
>
> (4) I became aware of this mismatch when trying to develop a RELAG NG
schema
> for WebDAV. James Clark's JING validator rejects the namespace name "DAV:"
> as invalid URI. So this has become a real-world problem (maybe it was
"just"
> academic before).
>
> I think this means that either RFC2396 or RFC2518 need to be fixed.
>
> Feedback appreciated.
>
> Julian
>
>
> [1] <http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes>
>
>
>
>
>