Subject: Re: A couple of issues

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:26:49 -0400

<<
I haven't seen this mentioned, but in section 9 it would be helpful to
classify the new headers as general-header, response-header, or
entity-header.
Lisa, let me know if you need an issue added for this.

<<
Also, I want to make sure the trailing slash for collections issue
(section 5.2) isn't forgotten. Julian suggested that it be added to the
issues list in
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002AprJun/0201.html>
.
Wow.  Right you are.  I just added an issue for it:
HOW_ARE_TRAILING_SLASHES_USED

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

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:38:44 +0200

(see also issue LOCKS_SHOULD_THEY_USE_AN_IF_HEADER_TO_VERIFY)

Proposed syntax:

12.1  activelock XML Element

Name:
activelock
Namespace:
DAV:
Purpose:
Describes a lock on a resource.

   <!ELEMENT activelock (lockscope, locktype, depth, owner?, timeout?,
locktoken?, lockroot?) >

12.1.x  lockroot XML Element

Name:
lockroot
Namespace:
DAV:
Purpose:
For locks with depth infinity, servers SHOULD report the root of the lock
using the DAV:lockroot element. This enables clients to know the scope of
resources affected by a subsequent UNLOCK with the given lock token. For
lock with depth 0, the DAV:lockroot element MUST NOT be present.

   <!ELEMENT lockroot (href) >

--

Note: I made it a "SHOULD" in order not to break existing implementations.

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:42:40 +0200

Hi,

12.1.2 ([1]) states:

"Purpose:
The lock token associated with a lock. Description: The href contains one or
more opaque lock token URIs which all refer to the same lock (i.e., the
OpaqueLockToken-URI production in section 6.4).

   <!ELEMENT locktoken (href+) >"

Question: why would multiple lock tokens refer to the same lock? And *if*
there are multiple URIs referring to the same lock (a consequence of
BINDs???), what's the point in reporting more than one? Is anybody using
this? Has interoperability been tested?

[1] <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#ELEMENT_locktoken>