- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:28:17 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
I would describe our conclusion as: We need to define a new field, say DAV:lockowner, that is specified in a LOCK request, and that takes an XML value. We will define some standard elements for that value. We should then deprecate the use of the DAV:owner field, as a field that contains non-interoperable data about the lock owner. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:35 PM To: Daniel Brotsky; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org; Lisa Dusseault Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER It sounds like we've concluded that we can't reuse the lockowner field because we've already specified that it's free text. Do we still have the requirement mentioned at... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2001JulSep/0218.html says... regarding identifying the owner of a lock? If so, now that we've had some discussion on this topic, can someone provide an improved definition of the requirement? And a proposal? Dan? Lisa? Geoff? Julian? J. ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 14:29:21 UTC