- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 21:42:57 +0200
- To: WebDav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Hi. More changes that I think do not represent WG consensus: 1: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#rfc.section.9.5.3.p.4>: -- The Not production is particularly useful with the "<DAV:no-lock>" state token. The clause "Not <DAV:no-lock>" MUST evaluate to true. Thus, any "OR" statement containing the clause "Not <DAV:no-lock>" MUST also evaluate to true. -- This now says MUST instead of "must". I'm not sure why RFC2119 terminology is invoked here. URIs in the DAV: namespace by definition never represent a lock token, because they can only be assigned by the IETF or this WG. So the statement applies to *all* URIs that use the DAV: URI scheme, "DAV:no-lock" is just one example. If you really feel that this needs to be stated somewhere, please don't make it sound as if "DAV:no-lock" is different from -- for instance -- "DAV:lock". 2: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest-from-07.diff.html#diff-30>: Why was the registration for "opaquelocktoken" removed from the IANA considerations? Thinking of it, why was the definition for the "DAV" URI scheme removed as well????? Please undo. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 28 October 2005 19:43:29 UTC