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

Re: [Bug 179] DAV:no-lock

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 05:53:47 -0500
To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF0B723FF9.DEDB2614-ON852570E8.003BCEEE-852570E8.003BDBAD@us.ibm.com>
I agree with Julian.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 12/31/2005 05:40:46 AM:

> 
> http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179
> 
> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
>          Resolution|FIXED                       |
>             Version|-08                         |-09
> 
> 
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From julian.reschke@greenbytes.de 
> 2005-12-31 02:40 -------
> (now in
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-09.
> html#rfc.section.9.5.4.p.4>)
> 
> I still that this is the incorrect approach. Don't use RFC2119 keywords 
for
> stuff that is a consequence from other requirements. Just explain 
> why it follows
> (if you feel that's necessary), but don't claim it's a requirement 
> on it's own,
> because that may confuse people to think that DAV:no-lock is special and
> different from something like DAV:this-is-really-a-locktoken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
> 
Received on Saturday, 31 December 2005 10:53:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:12 GMT