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


From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:17:07 -0500
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>
Cc: "Daniel Brotsky" <dbrotsky@adobe.com>, "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Message-ID: <OF35B23A84.0D9E04C2-ON85256B4F.0066A0AB@pok.ibm.com>

We can't redefine DAV: owner.  As you suggest, there are current deployed
uses of DAV:owner and there would indeed be transition issues.
If that's the case, let me take a stab at the transition situation of
Julian's proposal.

Julian proposes a second field for information called DAV:lockowner that is
a child of DAV:lockinfo.  The field is authored by the client and simply
stored unmodifed by the server.  Julian has defined it in such a way that
it's clear what "unmodified" means.


Old clients will write to DAV:owner only.  Not to the new field.
New clients presumably will write to both the old deprecated DAV:owner and
the new DAV:lockowner.

New servers will (attempt to) preserve both fields.

What will old servers do if they receive a lock info with the new
DAV:lockowner field but not the old DAV:owner field?  What will old servers
do if the client provides both?   Do some of the interop folks know how
current "old" servers are coded?


Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 14:32:14 UTC

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