- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:46:20 +0200
- To: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 02:46:54 UTC
Jason, I agree. Note that one of the entity headers to be present but empty is not very likely (because that would be a RFC2616-conformance bug). -----Original Message----- From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 5:16 AM To: Julian Reschke Cc: Julian Reschke; Lisa Dusseault; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft, property values after LOCK of unmapped URL Although I don't have a strong opinion on this, a quick first impression is that for getXXXXX properties, if the GET request will not list the header, it probably should be missing. And if the GET response will list it, the property should be there. And if the GET response lists the value as blank, then that's the value that the corresponding property should list. With that in mind, I'd suggest the wording that Julian originally questioned also list the possibility of the property not existing. J. ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 02:46:54 UTC