- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:52:08 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I agree with Jason's revision, although I'd probably further revise the wording to say: "When a new resource is created by a LOCK request against an unmapped URI, if an UNLOCK is applied to that resource before it has been explicitly updated (e.g. by a PUT or a PROPPATCH), then that resource SHOULD NOT be deleted as a side effect of the UNLOCK. Note that this changes the behavior defined in RFC-2518, which stated that the resource MUST be deleted in this case." Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 2:12 PM To: Alan Kent Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: rfc2518 issue: DEFER_LOCK_NULL_RESOURCES_IN_SPEC > - UNLOCK on the same URI without a PUT should (can?) delete the resource I think most people would change this to be... - UNLOCK on the same URI without a PUT should NOT delete the resource This will give existing implementations that try to delete it some flexibility but push people away from that direction. I doubt we can say anything stronger right now.
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 17:01:31 UTC