- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:16:15 +0100
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > I agree there's a fair argument for allowing servers not to put lock > tokens in lockdiscovery all the time. I can clarify the text there > because there certainly isn't a consensus to require servers to do that. > > We could, however, treat the LOCK (create lock) response slightly > differently, and require that the body contains the lockdiscovery > property *including* the new lock token -- a special case to handle > those clients that had problems at Interop tests. This does not make any sense. Sorry. It's the "Lock-Token" response header that *always* contains the result. Why do you insist on changing the spec so that there's a second mechanism? Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 17:17:38 UTC