W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:13:44 -0500
Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE25ED6D7@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

The only argument for not doing so is that being more
specific probably requires including the entire GULP
document, since that is needed to clearly define the difference
between locking a resource and protecting a URL.
But I don't think we want to include that information by
copy in each protocol extension document, so I think it
is more appropriate to get it into 2518bis, and refer to
it from the other documents.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Korver [mailto:briank@xythos.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 1:41 PM
To: WebDAV
Subject: Re: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)



On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 01:35  PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
> I suppose that covers it.  Hopefully the reader understands the 
> situations
> that
> that covers.

I'd like to vote in favor of providing enough specificity
that the reader will understand the situations it covers.
Are there any good arguments for not doing so?


>
> One question though... does it have to be a write-lock?  I suspect
> this precondition even applies to non-write locks.
>
>
>
-brian
briank@xythos.com
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 15:14:15 GMT

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