John Barone wrote: > ... > So, what is the change in semantics that you don't agree with, and what > changes in language are you proposing to correct it? > ... I'm not objecting to a change in semantics. What I see is a discrepancy between both specs' requirements on dead property support (SHOULD), and support for copying dead properties (MUST). If resource /a supports dead properties, and /b doesn't, then a COPY request from /a to /b "MUST" fail, which IMHO isn't a useful requirement. A resource should still be able to act as a destination for COPY, even if it doesn't support dead properties. So the proposed change is to relax the requirement to SHOULD. Does this make things clearer? Best regards, JulianReceived on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 18:31:32 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 October 2007 17:53:26 GMT