I'm happy either way, but have a slight preference for #2
(BTW, that should read "(thus not interoperable)".


Julian wrote on 06/18/2004 03:19:11 PM:

> This leaves us with the following options:
> 1) Just document things as they seem to be implemented (not requiring 
> that the client uses the URI of the lock root),
> 2) Keep our earlier statement -- basically clients MUST submit the lock 
> token with the URL of the lock root; and state that otherwise the 
> behaviour is server-defined (thus interoperable).
> As 2) is what we discussed before, I think I prefer that point of view. 
> However, if people think we should explicitly allow 1), I'll happily 
> document that as well.
> Feedback appreciated,

Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:42:39 UTC