W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1997

RE: Range locking

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 00:05:22 -0800
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-44-MSG-970221080522Z-326@INET-04-IMC.microsoft.com>
To: "'Larry Masinter'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: "'Jim Whitehead'" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
It a'int necessarily so. Much like a LOCK is a way of breaking ties
among users w/equivalent access rights, so range locks help to break
ties for people trying to edit the same section of a document.
	Yaron

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com]
>Sent:	Thursday, February 20, 1997 6:58 PM
>To:	Yaron Goland
>Cc:	'Jim Whitehead'; 'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'
>Subject:	Re: Range locking
>
>Was there (is there) a scenario that involves range locking?
>Range locking doesn't make sense for mutual editing of any of the
>document formats that I'm familiar with that are in common use on the
>Internet, even including Microsoft proprietary formats.
>
># The reason we need to be able to
># lock a portion of a document is because many people tend to share the
># same document and the ability to specify a section of the document as
># "locked", rather than locking the entire document, enhances the
># interaction of users. 
>
>This would justify "section" locking, but not "byte range"
>locking, since in word, powerpoint, HTML, PDF, GIF, JPEG,
>tiff, and most other formats, editing a section of a document
>generally changes all of the byte ranges.
>
>Larry
>
Received on Friday, 21 February 1997 03:08:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:42 GMT