W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: LOCKing an unmapped URL

From: (wrong string) é <werner.donne@pincette.biz>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 23:12:00 +0100
Message-Id: <6AF21623-1CC3-4AE9-B5B1-60EC3BC4D7B9@pincette.biz>
Cc: "w3c-dist-auth@w3.org" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Section 9.10.6 of RFC 4918 doesn't mandate those headers to be included, but I don't think it is forbidden to include them. Even when considering the PUT method as an anology, those headers are not obligatory.


Handling your documents with care, wherever you are.

Op 03 Jan 2013 om 21:59 heeft Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> het volgende geschreven:

> If a write lock is successfully created on an unmapped URL, should an ETag (with associated Location header) be returned for the empty resource in the 201 response?
> -- 
> Kenneth Murchison
> Principal Systems Software Engineer
> Carnegie Mellon University
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2013 22:12:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:45 UTC