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


From: Daniel Brotsky <dbrotsky@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:36:26 -0800
Message-Id: <p05101205b87ca4f75afe@[]>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
At 3:49 PM +0100 1/29/02, Julian Reschke wrote:
>  > 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

What does this "Sure" apply to, Julian?  Do you mean that new 
children of <DAV:lockinfo> can still be introduced?  Or do you mean 
of <DAV:owner>?

>>  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.

That's why I used my language about "dead properties" in the earlier 
message: we need to make sure the resolution to that issue drives the 
DAV:owner issue.

Daniel Brotsky, Adobe Systems
tel 408-536-4150, pager 877-704-4062
2-way pager email: <mailto:page-dbrotsky@adobe.com>
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 14:37:25 UTC

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