W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: Write Locks on Collections

From: Geoffrey Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@Rational.Com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 13:37:44 -0500
Message-ID: <00ba01bf3a84$847f69e0$384413ac@lex.rational.com>
To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
From: Jim Davis <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>

> At 11:35 AM 11/24/99 -0500, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote:
> >... propose that the statement in question be modified to explicitly
> >state "internal member", since depth:0 locks should only affect the
> >addition and removal of internal members.
> internal members, as opposed to those added by, say, BIND?

As opposed to members that are not internal members (where an internal
member is as it is defined in rfc2518).  For example, /a/b and /a/c are
internal members of /a, while /a/b/x and /a/c/y are members of /a but are
not internal members of /a.

Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 11:10:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:20 UTC