- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:33:47 -0800
- To: "'Jason Crawford'" <nn683849@smallcue.com>
- Cc: "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> On Friday, 03/07/2003 at 01:30 PST, "Lisa Dusseault" > <nnlisa___at___xythos.com@smallcue.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Anyway, the main issue for us is that we absolutely can not > > > change the > > > > DELETE collection semantics (from what we have in RFC2518). > > > > > > Sure you can. The behavior the spec outlines is > compliant with 2518. > > > It does not break 2518 compliant clients. But it does > require that > > > server writers do some coding before they can claim to support > > > this new feature. > > > > > > > Well, yes, one can change the required behavior from 2518 > to 2518bis. > > However, we don't want to do that unless there are existing > > interoperability problems. I don't think changing the model so that > > some servers have difficulty being compliant with the new model is a > > good idea for 2518bis. > > They'd still be compliant. SHOULD is not MUST > I don't think we're talking about the same thing any more. Perhaps too much context was deleted. I was talking about what I thought was a suggestion to use "MUST" with respect to DELETE being atomic in 2518bis. Lisa
Received on Saturday, 8 March 2003 13:33:53 UTC