W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: Comments on -12: properties, REPORT, OPTIONS

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:04:40 +0000
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <802569E7.004259B8.00@d06mta07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>


> > > 2) On the flip side, if a DeltaV property is not protected, is
> > > it the case that it MUST be writable using PROPPATCH, unless
> > > the property definition explicitly states otherwise (of course,
> > > writable assuming you have write access permissions).  In
> > > particular, does a client have a guarantee that it will always
> > > be able to write to, say, DAV:comment, and DAV:creator-displayname?
> >
> > If there is an unprotected property defined it is not the case that a
> > client can always PROPPATCH it, since that property may not be
> > supported by the server.  For example, if the server does not support
> > the activity option it MUST fail an attempt to PROPPATCH the
unprotected
> > workspace property DAV:current-activity-set.
>
> Sure, I agree completely.  What I was driving at was, if the server
> signals that it does support the activity option, does that then
> mean the server MUST allow writing to DAV:current-activity-set via
> PROPPATCH?

I claim "yes" -- that's what supporting the activity option means (plus the
other stuff<g>).

Tim
Received on Friday, 2 February 2001 07:15:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:40 GMT