Subject: Minor issue in RFC2518bis05, DAV:href

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:03:25 +0100

Hi,

the definition for DAV:href was "updated". Previously it referred to 
RFC2068, now it refers to RFC2616. This is incorrect because RFC2616 is 
about HTTP, while we need to reference RFC2396 (which defines general 
URI syntax).

Note that in WebDAV, the DAV:href element may contain non-HTTP URIs, 
such as opaquelocktoken.

Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:32:37 -0800

Do you think that the ability to contain 'opaquelocktoken' URIs is 
the sole exception, or is it generally OK for href to contain non-HTTP
URLs?  I believe the latter would cause some problems among clients.

And, is it always ok to have opaquelocktoken URIs in hrefs, or only
in certain circumstances?

lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:03 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Minor issue in RFC2518bis05, DAV:href
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:48:48 +0100

> URLs?  I believe the latter would cause some problems among clients.

Not generally. But there are other exceptions such as URIs that can 
appear in 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#PROPERTY_resource-id> 
or 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-acl-latest.html#PROPERTY_alternate-URI-set>.

> in certain circumstances?

Only in certain cirumstances. So any element that re-uses DAV:href needs 
to state that if it isn't prepared to accept any URI (productions 
absoluteURI and relativeURI in RFC2396).

Regards, Julian