- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:16:49 +0200
- To: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <nnjulian.reschke___at___gmx.de@smallcue.com>, nnw3c-dist-auth___at___w3.org@smallcue.com
Jason Crawford wrote: > I'd relax the server side to accept refresh requests at any resource in > the scope of the lock. Unless given a reason though, I'd still > encourage servers to send the refresh requests to the root of the lock. I guess you mean "clients" in the second sentence. The problem with this approach is that it makes little sense in a specification. If we say that servers SHOULD allow refresh against indirectly locked resources, it doesn't make sense to tell clients not to use it. Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Sunday, 4 July 2004 19:17:12 UTC