W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2003

RE: RFC2518bis issue: content type for locked empty resource

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:38:36 +0200
To: "Jason Crawford" <nn683849@smallcue.com>, "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>
Cc: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCEEEFHKAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Jason,

just to clarify: I don't have a problem specifying it, as long as we specify
that *no* content type should be returned.

Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Jason Crawford
  Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 10:22 PM
  To: Lisa Dusseault
  Cc: Webdav WG
  Subject: 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 One of the remaining issues on how lock-null resources have been
replaced by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.
Received on Sunday, 22 June 2003 16:38:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:04 GMT