W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2002


From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:49:23 +0100
To: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCEEINDOAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:36 PM
> To: Lisa Dusseault
> Cc: Daniel Brotsky; Clemm, Geoff; Julian Reschke; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> > (b) Add it to a DAV extension.
> Given the current grammar, have we left a route to do this?   Not as a
> child of DAV:lockinfo I believe.  Perhaps as a child of DAV:owner?

Sure. WebDAV explicitly states that servers and clients MUST ignore unknown

> I believe one of the things we were going to do was define what it meant
> for the server to maintain DAV:owner.  At least one person thought there
> was some ambiguity there.  Do we still feel that this is an issue?


1) The examples in RFC2518 do *not* preserve DAV:owner (watch out for

2) We currently don't have a clear definition about *what* needs to
preserved as a property value (this is already on the issues list). Whatever
applies to a property value should reply to the DAV:owner element as well.

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 09:49:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:24 UTC