- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:26:38 +0200
- To: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: nnw3c-dist-auth___at___w3.org@smallcue.com
Jason Crawford wrote: > The old way of overloading If seems pretty lame. Can't new clients do > both? Agreed, but it works (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). Why are we adding completely new requirements for both servers and clients with the inevitable interoperability issues if the present protocol does what it's supposed to do? > Can't new servers detect which approach in being used? They could, if we clearly define how. So far we haven't. > I wouldn't require servers to support the old way. Supporting the old > way is common sense but at some point we should encourage the movement > to the new approach. Well, that would break Microsoft Office. I don't think people will be very interested in a spec revision that doesn't work with it. IMHO the only thing we should say is that LOCK without a request body *with* an If header will refresh all locks on the resource identified by the request URI (possibly deprecating the use of the Time-Out request header here -- I don't think there's a strong use case for changing the timeout after the lock already exists; and as far as I know existing servers do not support it anyway). Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 10:26:54 UTC