RE: Minor corrections needed in IF header examples ?

• From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
• Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:56:49 -0700
• To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <AMEPKEBLDJJCCDEJHAMIMEBMDBAA.ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>

> Secs 9.4.1.1 and 9.4.3 give examples using the "IF" header. However, both
> examples use literally "<locktoken:", but shouldn't this be
> "<opaquelocktoken:"  (as per the definition in 6.4 and used throughout the
> rest of the RFC) ?

Actually, they're correct. Section 6.3 allows for any kind of lock token, so
long as it meets the uniqueness requirements stated there.

That said, it doesn't seem like there is a big advantage to allowing many
different kinds of lock token schemes. Or big disadvantage for that matter
:-)

- Jim

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 20:59:07 UTC