- From: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:40:46 -0800
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
Version|-08 |-09
------- Additional Comments From julian.reschke@greenbytes.de 2005-12-31 02:40 -------
(now in
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-09.html#rfc.section.9.5.4.p.4>)
I still that this is the incorrect approach. Don't use RFC2119 keywords for
stuff that is a consequence from other requirements. Just explain why it follows
(if you feel that's necessary), but don't claim it's a requirement on it's own,
because that may confuse people to think that DAV:no-lock is special and
different from something like DAV:this-is-really-a-locktoken.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Saturday, 31 December 2005 10:46:21 UTC