W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:38:33 +0100
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEGNDNAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Sounds good.

I think we should also consider defining standard LOCK privileges.

Here's a proposal for DAV:lockowner (I take the freedom to rename it):

<contact-URI-set xmlns="DAV:" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <contact-URI
xlink:href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de">EMail</contact-URI>
  <contact-URI xlink:href="tel:+492512807760">Work Phone</contact-URI>
</contact-URI-set>

DTD fragment:

<!ELEMENT contact-URI-set (contact-URI*)>
<!ELEMENT contact-URI #PCDATA>
<!-- contains human-displayable information qualifying the link -->
<!ATTLIST contact-URI
	xlink:type      (simple)        #FIXED "simple"
  	xlink:href      CDATA           #IMPLIED
  	xlink:role      CDATA           #IMPLIED
  	xlink:title     CDATA           #IMPLIED>




> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 8:28 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER
>
>
> 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 Saturday, 19 January 2002 15:39:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:59 GMT