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

RE: RFC2518 issue with lockdiscovery/activelock/owner

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 14:46:19 +0200
To: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCOEEFDCAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Whitehead
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 12:10 AM
> To: Webdav WG
> Subject: RE: RFC2518 issue with lockdiscovery/activelock/owner
> ...
>
> So, for a human consumer, the goals of the lock owner field are (a) to
> identify the collaborator who took out the lock, and (b) to provide some
> means of contacting them.  While the principal URLs used in the ACL
> specification are certainly identifiers, they're not particulary
> human-readable, unless the client knows to go grab the
> displayname property
> off of the identified resource. In retrospect, the choice of
> placing URLs in
> the lock owner field is not a great one, since popping a URL up
> in someone's
> face isn't very helpful. What should they do with it? It's not clear.

I think it makes sense to report a set of URLs (for instance phone number,
email address, homepage). Which URL is which could be flagged using the
xlink:role attribute
(<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/#link-semantics>). A user
agent can then  select the type of links it can process (for instance
offering to invoke the mail program or to issue a phone call).

> ...
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 08:45:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:56 GMT