- From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 17:48:09 -0400
- To: "Yaron Goland (Exchange)" <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- cc: "'Geoffrey M. Clemm'" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, "Jim Whitehead (E-mail)" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Yaron, I think you have some good points. Although one of you client arguments against *optional* features don't quiet have the impact that you might expect if I understand the proposals. 1) The proposal that is currently going around is that MOVE moves locks. It isn't optional in that proposal. 2) If all the lock tokens are provided, the move will succeed. (Baring other conditions like lock conflicts at the dest.) 3) Lock URI protection is optional in the most recent thread... but this only involves the locks of other principles... so a client is unlikely to be able to detect this before hand and take an optional preemptive code path. (It will alway provide tokens.) And if there is a failure due to this type of conflict, the client app is still unlikely to take an alternate path... other than to tell the user of the problem which is a codepath that is always there. This only deals with the optional path topic... and only the issue of LOCK URI protection. I think you have good points about locking with Word for example. J. ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Sunday, 26 September 1999 17:42:30 UTC