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

RE: Last call: range locking

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 20:29:19 -0800
Message-ID: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F485023BD0D8@RED-44-MSG>
To: "'Jim Whitehead'" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Pro Range Locking - Steve Carter, Yaron Y. Goland, and Gregory J.
Woodhouse, 
Anti Range Locking - Larry Masinter, Mark Day, and Fabio Vitali

Last I check 3/3 isn't a consensus and it certainly isn't a consensus in
favor of being rid of range locks.

Given that our goal is to provide for a distributed authoring and
versioning system that will be implemented (I mean it isn't like this is
our Phd. or something ;) and given that range locks are such a
fundamental feature that every major operating system, document creation
system, and database system provides them in one form or another, it
would seem that range locks are absolutely in scope.

			Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jim Whitehead [SMTP:ejw@ics.uci.edu]
> Sent:	Monday, March 03, 1997 3:32 PM
> To:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	Last call: range locking
> 
> In the past two weeks, there has been significant discussion on
> whether
> range locking capability should be included in the WebDAV
> specification.
> 
> Discussion on this issue can be found in the mailing list archives,
> available at:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/
> 
> Discussion on this issue has taken place in the following threads:
> 
> "Range locking"
> "legacy clients"
> "range locking not used in GroupWise"
> 
> In my opinion, there exists rough consensus that range locking
> capability
> should be considered out of scope for consideration by this group, and
> hence range locking capability will not appear in either our
> requirements
> or specification documents.
> 
> If you disagree, please do so now, otherwise I will consider this
> issue closed.
> 
> - Jim
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 3 March 1997 23:29:15 GMT

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