W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: Bindings and GULP again

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:01:52 -0500
To: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <OFEFB0DCD0.ADCCFDBB-ON85256E0D.005650DA-85256E0E.00528A36@us.ibm.com>

I assume that this is just a statement about current client behavior.

I would prefer to state that the token must appear with the right
URL (when in a tagged list), and then in an "interop" section state
that a server may consider the token to be submitted even if it appears
with the wrong URL, to handle older clients.

But if other folks prefer just the "anywhere in the If header,
even with the wrong URL" semantics, I won't object.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 12/30/2003 05:43:01 AM:

> Quoting section 7.6:
> 
>     In order to prevent these collisions a lock token MUST be submitted
>     by an authorized principal for all locked resources that a method
>     may change or the method MUST fail.  A lock token is submitted when
>     it appears in an If header.  For example, if a resource is to be
>     moved and both the source and destination are locked then two lock
>     tokens must be submitted in the if header, one for the source and
>     the other for the destination.
> 
> I can live with that, but I'm not sure why this is better than requiring 

> the token to appear with the right URL (when in a tagged list). Is this 
> just a statement about current client behaviour, or a change compared to 

> RFC2518?
Received on Thursday, 1 January 2004 10:07:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:51 UTC