- From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:15:47 -0400
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
- Cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org, ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
Looks like they all should be DAV:must-be-checked-in (to avoid the
negative).
Peter Raymond <Peter.Raymond@merant.com>
Sent by: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
07/10/2001 08:44 AM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
cc:
Subject: Should it be DAV:must-not-be-checked-out or DAV:must-be-checked-i n?
Hi,
In section 1.6.1 we have an example of a CHECKOUT method which fails with
a DAV:must-not-be-checked-out
and returning a 409 Conflict.
I cannot actually see in the spec where the Precondition
DAV:must-not-be-checked-out for the CHECKOUT
method is defined?
CHECKOUT has a DAV:must-be-checked-in Precondition NOT a
DAV:must-not-be-checked-out
Precondition. So is the example wrong or should the condition for
CHECKOUT be changed.
I also note that DAV:must-not-be-checked-out is used as a precondition for
the LABEL method.
Perhaps they should be consistent and both use
DAV:must-not-be-checked-out?
Regards,
--
Peter Raymond - MERANT
Technical Architect (ADM)
Tel: +44 (0)1727 813362
Fax: +44 (0)1727 869804
mailto:Peter.Raymond@merant.com
WWW: http://www.merant.com
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2001 10:15:53 UTC