- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 20:58:38 +0100
- To: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Lisa, please see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002OctDec/0286.html :-) BTW: the token will still need to be a syntactically valid legal, so it MUST contain a (registered) scheme name, thus the proposal to use "DAV:no-lock". Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 8:09 PM > To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Webdav WG' > Subject: 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 14:59:11 UTC