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

RE: GULP (version 4)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:24:07 +0200
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCOEMOFIAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Lisa,

please re-read my mail.

I was saying that we need to define what the state of a resource is.

In particular its

- content
- internal members (depth 0 lock on collections)
- dead properties
- locks
- *some* live properties (such as DAV:label) -- this is where it'll get
hairy, I guess

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 7:20 PM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: RE: GULP (version 4)
>
>
>
> > "If a request would modify the state of a resource, the request MUST
> fail
> > unless the lock-token for that lock is specified in the request."
>
> This isn't much more specific than the current "is affected by"
> language.  It leaves it entirely up to the server to decide what
> modifying the state of a resource is.  Does modifying membership count?
> (Is modifying membership blocked by a depth 0 lock?)  Does modifying
> property values count?
>
> This is exactly where clients have had problems submitting simple
> requests to server implementations that each have a different idea what
> resources have state modified by the request.
>
> lisa
>
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 13:24:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT