- 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