RE: Using If and not failing

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