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


From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 11:56:58 +0100
To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Cc: "Daniel Brotsky" <dbrotsky@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCOEEEDOAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

I think you need to go back again through the mails that were exchanged.

My summary:

a) We agree that server-supplied information (if at allI) should be handled
by ACL locking privileges. I think we also have an agreement that locking
privileges should become part of the ACL draft/spec.

b) The current DAV:owner element is something that the client sets and MUST
not be touched by the server. However, it's contents is undefined and thus
can't be used for interoperability *between* clients. Q: do we want to
deprecate it because of this?

c) Because of b), we need a new client-supplied lock owner information
element, in which it reveals whatever the user of the client software wants
to reveal using a *standard* format (so that one client can actually
*process* the information a different client has set). My initital proposal
for this format is:

<contact-URI-set xmlns="DAV:" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
  <contact-URI xlink:href="tel:+492512807760">Work Phone</contact-URI>

DTD fragment:

<!ELEMENT contact-URI-set (contact-URI*)>
<!-- 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 Daniel Brotsky
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 5:55 PM
> To: Clemm, Geoff
> Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> (Sorry for the delay in this reply; I've been away from mail for a week.)
> At 2:28 PM -0500 1/18/02, Clemm, Geoff wrote:
> >I would describe our conclusion as:
> Yow.  Unfortunately I would describe it in almost opposite terms...
> >
> >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.
> I would have said our conclusion was:
> We need to define a new XML-valued field, say DAV:lockowner, that is
> owned by the server and returned as part of lockdiscovery.  We will
> define some standard elements for that value which the server can use
> to reveal as much or as little as it wants about:
> - the principal owning the lock (e.g., a "login name")
> - the relationship between the owning principal and the requesting
> principal (e.g., requestor is/is not the owner)
> - the capabilities of the requestor with respect to the lock (e.g.,
> requestor has/has not the same capabilities as the owner; requestor
> has/has not the ability to use or unlock the lock).
> >
> >We should then deprecate the use of the DAV:owner field, as a field
> >that contains non-interoperable data about the lock owner.
> I would have said:
> We then need to explicitly reserve the use of the DAV:owner field to
> be for clients to use at lock request time (in order to provide for
> client-to-client conventional communication).  We need to forbid
> servers from rewriting the client-specified value (other than
> clarifying that the DAV:owner field is XML-valued, and thus subject
> to parsing/regeneration by the server).
> We then need to resolve the issue about whether the client can
> rewrite the lock:owner field as part of a lock refresh request.  (I
> believe this was an outstanding issue as to whether clients can
> change any aspect of a lock in a refresh request.)  I would recommend
> that clients be able to do this.
>      dan
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> --
> Daniel Brotsky, Adobe Systems
> tel 408-536-4150, pager 877-704-4062
> 2-way pager email: <mailto:page-dbrotsky@adobe.com>
Received on Saturday, 26 January 2002 05:57:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:24 UTC