Lists Home |
Date Index |
Correct. I didn't want to imply anything else.
IMHO, RFC2396 should not try to workaround the error made in RFC2518, but
that's just my point of view, it seems.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 6:49 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Illegal Characters in Namespace URIs
> 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. firstname.lastname@example.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com