Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 08:48:11AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Not so. The reason WebDAV "gets away" with the badly chosen namespace name is the fact that RFC2396+ is going to allow empty scheme-specific parts, making "just the scheme name" a valid URI. At least that's my understanding of the outcome of the discussion.
"RFC 2396+" is likely going to allow empty scheme-specific parts
*because* WebDAV made a boo-boo, not the other way around. 8-)
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. email@example.com