Subject: [Bug 179] New: DAV:no-lock

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:22:16 -0800

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179

           Summary: DAV:no-lock
           Product: WebDAV-RFC2518-bis
           Version: -08
          Platform: Other
               URL: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-
                    rfc2518bis-08.html#rfc.section.9.5.3.p.4
        OS/Version: other
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: 09.  HTTP Headers for Distributed Authoring
        AssignedTo: [email-masked]
        ReportedBy: [email-masked]
         QAContact: [email-masked]

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-08.html#rfc.section.9.5.3.p.4>:

"The Not production is particularly useful with the "<DAV:no-lock>" state token.
The clause "Not <DAV:no-lock>" MUST evaluate to true. Thus, any "OR" statement
containing the clause "Not <DAV:no-lock>" MUST also evaluate to true."

Again, Dav:no-lock is not anything special. It's an *example* for a URI that by
definition never identifies a lock (like "DAV:lock", for instance). So a
normative MUST is incorrect here. Just say

"The Not production is particularly useful with a state token known not to ever
identify a lock, such as "DAV:no-lock". The clause "Not <DAV:no-lock>" will
evaluate to true. Thus, any "OR" statement containing the clause "Not
<DAV:no-lock>" will also evaluate to true."

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.