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

RE: GULP (version 5)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:43:13 +0200
To: "Jason Crawford" <nn683849@smallcue.com>, "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>
Cc: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCAEOAFIAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:07 AM
> To: Clemm, Geoff
> Cc: 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: Re: GULP (version 5)
> ..
>
> >   The request-URL of the request MUST identify a resource that
> >   has a lock (either direct or indirect) with the specified lock token.
>
> I am uncomfortable refering to multiple locks.  I've always thought of it
> as one lock that affects multiple resources.   I'm also uncomfortable
> saying

I agree.

Like it or not, a lock has a unique URI and identity, thus it is a resource
(it may even be a WebDAV resource :-).

> a resource *has* as lock as opposed to saying it *is* locked.
> But I have to admit that how you're saying it so far
> is very easy to understand.
>
> ...

How about saying "is affected by a lock"?


--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 11 October 2002 03:43:27 GMT

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