Re: RFC2518bis issue: content type for locked empty resource

On Saturday, 06/21/2003 at 03:02 MST, "Lisa Dusseault" 
<nnlisa___at___xythos.com@smallcue.com> wrote:
> One of the remaining issues on how lock-null resources have been 
replaced by 
> locked empty resources (resources whose behavior is normal, rather than 
> different, and just happen to be locked and empty) is what Content-Type 
to 
> use.  I had previously favoured a specific Content-type just so all 
servers 
> behaved identically, and that's what most recently appears in the draft. 
 
> However, Julian's arguments are swaying me.  Here's our recent exchange 
on this 
> subject:
I tend to agree with Lisa's thinking.  (I don't understand Julian's :-))
Specificity is good.  We should specify what should be returned (including
possibly no Content-Type).  We should specify this as a SHOULD, not a
MUST.