[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [relax-ng] Fw: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency
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> > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC