On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 12:13 PM, Clemm, Geoff wrote: > 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 Geoff, As GULP frequently defines things in terms of bindings, the text as-is seems more appropriate to the binding spec. -brian briank@xythos.comReceived on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 20:33:56 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT