W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Should CHECKOUT support a TIMEOUT?

From: Tim Ellison <tim@peir.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:20:53 +0100
To: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FDEHJMOEIDFPFLBKEICGGENHCAAA.tim@peir.com>
I don't know how you could add this to the spec, since it would require
using language about 'client identity' that we don't have.  I think this is
a clear case for _not_ stating something that we _don't_ do.

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: 16 June 2001 17:24
> To: Clemm, Geoff; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Should CHECKOUT support a TIMEOUT?
>
>
> I would like to see this pointed out explicitly in the spec (does not need
> to be normative though), rather than have the behaviour left to
> be induced.
>
> lisa
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:51 PM
> > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Should CHECKOUT support a TIMEOUT?
> >
> >
> > The versioning protocol places no restriction on who can
> > do an UNCHECKOUT (if there were, you would see it specified
> > as a precondition for the UNCHECKOUT method).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Geoff
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Hall [mailto:johnhall@evergo.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 5:24 PM
> > To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> > Subject: Should CHECKOUT support a TIMEOUT?
> >
> >
> >
> > ... And if not, is there a provision for someone other than the person
> > who did the checkout performing an UNCHECKOUT?
> >
> >
>
Received on Sunday, 17 June 2001 13:24:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:41 GMT