- From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:04:40 +0000
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> > > 2) On the flip side, if a DeltaV property is not protected, is > > > it the case that it MUST be writable using PROPPATCH, unless > > > the property definition explicitly states otherwise (of course, > > > writable assuming you have write access permissions). In > > > particular, does a client have a guarantee that it will always > > > be able to write to, say, DAV:comment, and DAV:creator-displayname? > > > > If there is an unprotected property defined it is not the case that a > > client can always PROPPATCH it, since that property may not be > > supported by the server. For example, if the server does not support > > the activity option it MUST fail an attempt to PROPPATCH the unprotected > > workspace property DAV:current-activity-set. > > Sure, I agree completely. What I was driving at was, if the server > signals that it does support the activity option, does that then > mean the server MUST allow writing to DAV:current-activity-set via > PROPPATCH? I claim "yes" -- that's what supporting the activity option means (plus the other stuff<g>). Tim
Received on Friday, 2 February 2001 07:15:46 UTC