- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:44:47 +0100
- To: "Fay, Chuck" <CFay@filenet.com>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Fay, Chuck wrote: > I would like to revise and expand on some wording that I introduced in > the first sentence, to make it clearer: > > 2.x UNLOCK and Bindings > > Due to the specific language used in section 8.11 of [RFC2518], it might > be thought that an UNLOCK request to a locked resource would unlock just > the particular binding expressed by the Request-URI, rather than the > resource identified by that URI. This is not the case, however. > Section 6 of [RFC2518] clearly states that locks are on resources, not > URIs, so the server MUST allow UNLOCK to be used to unlock a locked > resource through any binding to that resource. The authors of this > specification anticipate and recommend that future revisions of > [RFC2518] maintain this behavior. It keeps improving :-). Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 00:45:29 UTC