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: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:50:31 -0800
Message-ID: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F485023BD0F4@RED-44-MSG>
To: "'Larry Masinter'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: "'dgd@cs.bu.edu'" <dgd@cs.bu.edu>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Translating from Larry Speak - The idea has merit, so he wants to know
more.

I will have a full blown proposal to the group before the end of next
week. The proposal will contain my suggested solutions to a number of
outstanding issues.

		Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, March 04, 1997 9:58 PM
> To:	Yaron Goland
> Cc:	'dgd@cs.bu.edu'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	Re: Last call: range locking
> 
> I read the whole thing. I didn't take BYTEHEAD seriously (perhaps
> it was your smiley) partly because the combination of HEAD and range
> retrieval didn't seem to be adequate to discover the ways in 
> which a resource could logically be decomposed, much less the 
> proper way to find the names of the parts; your subsequent proposal
> for LOCKSBYTE, being a kludge on top of a non-functional subproposal
> didn't seem to be too serious either.
> 
> If you do mean for these to be taken seriously, perhaps you'd
> want to change "BYTE" to "RANGE" and deal with the issue of
> disjoint ranges, the mechanism by which AcceptRanges might
> be discovered, whether AcceptRanges applies to accepting locks
> on ranges, etc.
> 
> otherwise, it just bytes.
> 
> Larry
>  
> -- 
> http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
> 
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 1997 13:57:57 GMT

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