Re: LOCK_URL_WITH_NO_PARENT_COLLECTION

In my original message there is a suggested update of the LOCK method 
section that reflects the two possible meanings of 409.  I would suggest 
we integrate it into the spec.

     dan

On Friday, February 15, 2002, at 12:32 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:

>> The issue: LOCK_URL_WITH_NO_PARENT_COLLECTION
>>
>> In <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-
>> auth/2001JanMar/0134.html> I asked that LOCK return 409 with no
>> body when parent collections don't exist.  There was no discussion
>> (which at the time I took to be assent but the issue was never
>> closed), but with this change in LOCK semantics I believe the
>> issue is forced: LOCK must return 409 (with no body) exactly as
>> PUT does when there are missing parent collections.  So I think
>> this issue should be closed as accepted, unless anyone has a
>> problem with the language I specified in my original message.
>
> I'll update the issues list to reflect this.   Since I believe there is
> nothing in the spec to
> suggest otherwise, I'll also note that we should check that the text we 
> add
> to remove
> the existance of LNR's should not be ambiguous on this topic.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com
>
>

Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 16:20:13 UTC