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


From: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 21:21:21 -0800
Message-Id: <200512100521.jBA5LLnI007711@ietf.cse.ucsc.edu>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org


ejw@cs.ucsc.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

------- Additional Comments From ejw@cs.ucsc.edu  2005-12-09 21:21 -------
I agree with Julian -- there isn't a compelling interoperability reason to add
additional information concerning new lock token URI types. Since we now have an
example of a second lock token URI type in the specification (the UUID URN), and
this was introduced without needing to indicate in its syntax that it's a lock
token, we seem to be able to introduce new lock token URI types without the
suggested change.

I'm closing this issue (with no changes to the specification) -- if someone else
feels strongly, they can reopen. 

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Saturday, 10 December 2005 05:21:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:34 UTC