RE: resourcetype for an activity

That change is fine with me.  If there are no objections, I'll add
this as a closed issue to RFC-3253.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 10/13/2003 02:08:11 PM:

> 
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Alison 
Macmillan
> > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:48 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: DAV:resourcetype for an activity
> >
> >
> >
> > Section 13.1 of the spec says that the DAV:resourcetype of an activity
> > must be DAV:activity. This would seem to disallow an implementation
> > where the resourcetype was, say:
> >
> > <resourcetype xmlns="DAV:">
> >   <activity/>
> >   <collection/>
> > </resourcetype>
> >
> > Is there a reason for saying that an activity's resourcetype must be
> > (rather than include) DAV:activity?
> 
> No. In fact, I think this is what RFC3253 *should* be saying (similar
> considerations apply to version history resources).
> 
> Geoff, I think this should be on the errata list.
> 
> Julian
> 
> 
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>