- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:08:11 +0200
- To: "Alison Macmillan" <alison.macmillan@oracle.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Alison Macmillan > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:48 PM > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Subject: DAV:resourcetype for an activity > > > > Section 13.1 of the spec says that the DAV:resourcetype of an activity > must be DAV:activity. This would seem to disallow an implementation > where the resourcetype was, say: > > <resourcetype xmlns="DAV:"> > <activity/> > <collection/> > </resourcetype> > > Is there a reason for saying that an activity's resourcetype must be > (rather than include) DAV:activity? No. In fact, I think this is what RFC3253 *should* be saying (similar considerations apply to version history resources). Geoff, I think this should be on the errata list. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 13 October 2003 14:10:34 UTC