- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:03:45 +0200
- To: "Hall, Shaun" <Shaun.Hall@gbr.xerox.com>, "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]Im Auftrag von Hall, Shaun > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Whitehead [mailto:ejw@cse.ucsc.edu] > > Sent: 15 June 2001 19:51 > > To: WebDAV WG > > Subject: RE: Status code for creating lock-null resource > > > There is a difference between a "null" resource, and a "lock > > null" resource. > > The definition of a "null" resource, as given in Section 3, > > is correct. Lock > > null resources are defined in Section 7.4. A null resource > > does not belong > > to its parent collection, and does not respond to UNLOCK. > > Perhaps a better > > way to express this concept is that what we termed a "null > > resource" is > > really an "unmapped URL". That is, the URL is not mapped to a > > resource. This > > avoids the philosophical question of "is a null resource a > > resource"? By > > calling it an unmapped URL, a "null resource" is clearly not > > a resource. > > Agreed on all of Jims points. I like the point about "URL is not > mapped to a > resource". Maybe it could be included in the revised RFC as it could make > things clearer for some people ? I support that. It's currently to ease to misread. ;)
Received on Monday, 18 June 2001 05:03:51 UTC