Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft, property values after LOCK of unmapped URL

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:16:11 -0400

Although I don't have a strong opinion on this, a quick first impression is
that for getXXXXX properties, if the GET request will not list the header,
it probably should be missing.  And if the GET response will list it, the
property should be there.  And if the GET response lists the value as
blank, then that's the value that the corresponding property should list.

With that in mind, I'd suggest the wording that Julian originally
questioned also list the possibility of the property not existing.

J.

------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569,   [email-masked]

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:46:20 +0200

Jason,

I agree. Note that one of the entity headers to be present but empty is not
very likely (because that would be a RFC2616-conformance bug).

  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Jason Crawford
  Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 5:16 AM
  To: Julian Reschke
  Cc: Julian Reschke; Lisa Dusseault; [email-masked]
  Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft, property values after LOCK of unmapped
URL

  Although I don't have a strong opinion on this, a quick first impression
is that for getXXXXX properties, if the GET request will not list the
header, it probably should be missing. And if the GET response will list it,
the property should be there. And if the GET response lists the value as
blank, then that's the value that the corresponding property should list.

  J.