W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2001


From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:24:04 +0200
To: "Keith Wannamaker" <Keith@Wannamaker.org>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBKJABLJNMLJELONBKAEEMCPAA.stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Keith Wannamaker
> | The current implementations have demonstrated that lock null resources
> | are not a basis for interoperability.
> This statement has been mentioned several times, in one form or
> another, in this thread.  Do you have documentation or test cases
> for these interoperability problems?

One example is Microsoft IIS which does not implement lock-null resources
as specified in 2518. E.g. MKCOL will not work and lock-null resources
will not disappear after lock timeout.

> When I did the initial locknull implementation for mod_dav, it seemed
> to me that the notion of a lock-null resource as presented in 2518
> was very clear and logical.  On what have implementors disagreed?

mod_dav is an excellent implementation.
> It seems to me that we gain more from the work already done and
> implemented to clarify, if needed, rather than abandon.

The point made is that the specified behaviour might not be worth
the effort. Limiting the lock-null requirements could result in
making (server) implementations easier without giving up any
functionality. The benefit for clients would be that more servers
will comply to the spec.

Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 04:24:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:23 UTC