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

Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:12:19 +0200
Message-ID: <43639F63.4090000@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> It's the same: 
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.8.10.1>:
>>
>> "The response MUST contain the value of the lockdiscovery property in 
>> a prop XML element."
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>>
> Yes, and MUST the lock token appear in that context? This is important 

Again, it's the same. So no, it doesn't have to. It's all in RFC2518.

> because some clients pull the lock token value from the body of the 
> request.  When we tested this in interop testing, we found some clients 

That's a bug. The best way to keep people from doing it is to tell them 
to use the Lock-Token response header.

> used the body and some used the header, and we had decided at that point 
> to allow that to continue happening and make servers put the token in 
> both places.

Who is "we" in this context?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 29 October 2005 16:12:58 GMT

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