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: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:24:36 +0100
To: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEOHDOAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 5:42 AM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER
>
>
>
> I'm closing out the issue of HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER
>
> I've added the issue of the server maintaining the unaltered value of
> DAV:owner that the locking client provides.   No further discussion
> neccessary.
>
> I've added an issue to note that the spec should make it clear that the
> roundtrip behavior of DAV:owner should match the round trip behavior of
> dead properties.  The issue for that one is PROP_ROUNDTRIP and we still
> need to resolve it.

Sounds good.

> I think we've resolved that we CAN add a more clearly defined
> property as a
> child of DAV:lockinfo, but I've not added an issue on this.  If we still
> want to pursue a new field, I'll add an issue for it.

I think we should to that.

If the concern is that we can't add new features to the RFC revision, I'd
like to propose that we collect all things that *extend* WebDAV (and for
which we have a consensus) into a new, separate draft (which could be
submitted as experimental protocol at the time the RFC2518 revision is
done).
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 10:25:09 GMT

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