W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: LOCKing an unmapped URL

From: Werner Donné <werner.donne@pincette.biz>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 23:12:00 +0100
Message-Id: <6AF21623-1CC3-4AE9-B5B1-60EC3BC4D7B9@pincette.biz>
Cc: "w3c-dist-auth@w3.org" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Section 9.10.6 of RFC 4918 doesn't mandate those headers to be included, but I don't think it is forbidden to include them. Even when considering the PUT method as an anology, those headers are not obligatory.

Werner.

--
http://www.pincette.biz/
Handling your documents with care, wherever you are.

Op 03 Jan 2013 om 21:59 heeft Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> het volgende geschreven:

> If a write lock is successfully created on an unmapped URL, should an ETag (with associated Location header) be returned for the empty resource in the 201 response?
> 
> -- 
> Kenneth Murchison
> Principal Systems Software Engineer
> Carnegie Mellon University
> 
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2013 22:12:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 3 January 2013 22:12:32 GMT