RE: RFC2518bis issue: content type for locked empty resource

Jason,
just to clarify: I don't have a problem specifying it, as long as we specify
that *no* content type should be returned.
Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
 -----Original Message-----
 From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Jason Crawford
 Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 10:22 PM
 To: Lisa Dusseault
 Cc: Webdav WG
 Subject: Re: RFC2518bis issue: content type for locked empty resource
 On Saturday, 06/21/2003 at 03:02 MST, "Lisa Dusseault"
<nnlisa___at___xythos.com@smallcue.com> wrote:
 > One of the remaining issues on how lock-null resources have been
replaced by
 > locked empty resources (resources whose behavior is normal, rather than
 > different, and just happen to be locked and empty) is what Content-Type
to
 > use. I had previously favoured a specific Content-type just so all
servers
 > behaved identically, and that's what most recently appears in the draft.
 > However, Julian's arguments are swaying me. Here's our recent exchange
on this
 > subject:
 I tend to agree with Lisa's thinking. (I don't understand Julian's :-))
 Specificity is good. We should specify what should be returned (including
 possibly no Content-Type). We should specify this as a SHOULD, not a
 MUST.