RE: Using If and not failing

Yes, I am aware it's the same solution in spirit. However, a slight
tweak makes it a little shorter, or in the the untagged list case, quite
a bit shorter.

Your proposal was (mail from Tue 10/8/2002):
  If: <http://www.foo.bar/resource1>
(<locktoken:a-write-lock-token>)(Not <locktoken:a-write-lock-token>))

That's rather long, and it's unnecessary to put a real lock token in the
negative clause.  The client can at least shrink the header a bit using
  If: <http://www.foo.bar/resource1>
(<locktoken:a-write-lock-token>)(Not <no-lock>)

But if the client can get away with using an untagged list production,
it's even shorter:
  If: (<locktoken:a-write-lock-token>) (Not <no-lock>)

RFC2518: "If multiple No-tag-list productions are used then one only
needs to match the state of the resource for the method to be allowed to
continue."

Lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 1:58 AM
> To: Lisa Dusseault; 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: RE: Using If and not failing
> 
> 
> Lisa,
> 
> you are aware that this exactly the proposal that Geoff and 
> myself have been
> making for some months now?
> 
> Julian
> 
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>

Received on Saturday, 1 February 2003 14:08:44 UTC