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

Re: Last call: range locking

From: Steve Carter <SRCarter@novell.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 08:54:31 -0700
Message-Id: <s31be3b1.047@novell.com>
To: quentinc@microsoft.com, masinter@parc.xerox.com
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
To further quote Larry

>It might be that in one implementation
>"http://server.dom/resource/bytes=1-12"
>is a byte range of "http://server.dom/resource", but we don't need to
>standardize
>on that, only the relationship between them. 

With that I agreed that the issues does not have to be a protocol issue.  -src

>>> Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> 03/04/97 05:25AM >>>
Quentin:

Your testimonial not withstanding, the issue is NOT whether "byte range
locking" is a useful feature in operating systems. The issue is not
about the feature at all. We're not designing an operating system, we're
designing a network protocol for web authoring.

Or, to quote myself from a private conversation about this:

> You keep on talking about function, and I'm talking about protocol.
> The issue isn't whether the function needs to get exposed, the
> issue is whether the protocol needs to be aware of it. I don't
> see any good reason why the protocol needs to get more complicated
> to deal with "byte range locking" when "resource locking" covers
> it, because a "byte range" can be a "resource".
> 

The Internet already has many network protocols for file systems.
WEBDAV is not, and should not become, a network protocol for
file system replacement. (If that's what you want, why, we already
have NFS and CIFS to contend with.)

-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 1997 10:56:23 GMT

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