- From: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:30:36 -0800
- To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 01:50 PM, Clemm, Geoff wrote: > > I wouldn't want to tug any harder on that particular string (i.e. > defining precisely what "protect" means), or else we'd end up needing > to include most of the GULP (Grand Unified Locking Proposal) in the > binding draft. Given that I think that the binding draft needs to be more explicit about the behavior of locks, what would be so awful about including some of GULP? > Since we currently only have definitions of the semantics of write > locks, I try to avoid speculating on what semantics non-write locks > may have some day. > > Cheers, > Geoff -brian briank@xythos.com
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 20:30:38 UTC