- From: Jason Crawford <nn683849@smallcue.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:41:22 -0400
- To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Cc: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
On Wednesday, 09/25/2002 at 04:36 ZE2, Stefan Eissing wrote: > Am Dienstag, 24.09.02, um 21:27 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Jason > Crawford: > > >> 2. Clients should ALSO be able to provide multiple unqualified lock > >> tokens in order to prove that they have those tokens and can do write > >> requests legally, in a way that does not impose conditions on the > >> success of the request. This mechanism should not use or affect the > >> Lock-Token header which is required in UNLOCK to specify a single lock > >> token to remove or refresh. This mechanism should be capable of > >> supporting many values. > >> > >> ... > Now for (2): Except for the "unqualified" part, this can be expressed > with current If header syntax as > ... I think part of their point here was that they want to seperate the submission of lock tokens to satisfy the server's enforcement of locking rules from the clients' submission of pre-reqs for the request One type of submission (tokens) is pretty simple. The other (conditional expressions) is not quite as simple. But in combination in the same header it makes for messy semantics. For that reason, the If: header wasn't advocated for (2). At least that's what I assume based on previous discussions. ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 13:47:23 UTC