W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 21:42:57 +0200
Message-ID: <43627F41.7020806@gmx.de>
To: WebDav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Hi.

More changes that I think do not represent WG consensus:

1: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#rfc.section.9.5.3.p.4>:

--
The Not production is particularly useful with the "<DAV:no-lock>" state 
token. The clause "Not <DAV:no-lock>" MUST evaluate to true. Thus, any 
"OR" statement containing the clause "Not <DAV:no-lock>" MUST also 
evaluate to true.
--

This now says MUST instead of "must". I'm not sure why RFC2119 
terminology is invoked here. URIs in the DAV: namespace by definition 
never represent a lock token, because they can only be assigned by the 
IETF or this WG. So the statement applies to *all* URIs that use the 
DAV: URI scheme, "DAV:no-lock" is just one example.

If you really feel that this needs to be stated somewhere, please don't 
make it sound as if "DAV:no-lock" is different from -- for instance -- 
"DAV:lock".



2: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest-from-07.diff.html#diff-30>:

Why was the registration for "opaquelocktoken" removed from the IANA 
considerations? Thinking of it, why was the definition for the "DAV" URI 
scheme removed as well?????

Please undo.


Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 28 October 2005 19:43:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT