RE: RFC2518bis issue: content type for locked empty resource

Jason,

just to clarify: I don't have a problem specifying it, as long as we specify
that *no* content type should be returned.

Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Jason Crawford
  Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 10:22 PM
  To: Lisa Dusseault
  Cc: Webdav WG
  Subject: Re: RFC2518bis issue: content type for locked empty resource



  On Saturday, 06/21/2003 at 03:02 MST, "Lisa Dusseault"
<nnlisa___at___xythos.com@smallcue.com> wrote:
  > One of the remaining issues on how lock-null resources have been
replaced by
  > locked empty resources (resources whose behavior is normal, rather than
  > different, and just happen to be locked and empty) is what Content-Type
to
  > use.  I had previously favoured a specific Content-type just so all
servers
  > behaved identically, and that's what most recently appears in the draft.
  > However, Julian's arguments are swaying me.  Here's our recent exchange
on this
  > subject:
  I tend to agree with Lisa's thinking.  (I don't understand Julian's :-))
  Specificity is good.  We should specify what should be returned (including
  possibly no Content-Type).  We should specify this as a SHOULD, not a
  MUST.