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

Re: GULP vs RFC2518bis

From: Elias <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:33:40 -0800
To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-id: <3E68E604.3080903@cse.ucsc.edu>

I agree, the specification should clearly define all of the WebDAV 
methods such that referring to a secondary text is not necessary. The 
proposed changes to remove the references to bindings don't seem to 
affect GULP semantics so I would support adding the revised version to 
2518bis.


Elias


Stefan Eissing wrote:

>
> I think GULP should, with the proposed changes, go into RFC2518 bis.
>
> LOCKing semantics need to be defined in 2518bis and not in any
> side-track specification (sorry Goeff ;).
>
> //Stefan
>
> Am Freitag, 07.03.03, um 15:23 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Julian 
> Reschke:
>
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I'd really like to see some progress regarding this issue. In
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0281.html
>>
>> I have tried to rephrase GULP so that it doesn't require the term 
>> "binding"
>> anymore. This should address the concerns of those who fear that a
>> dependency on the BIND spec is introduced.
>>
>> To those who did object to GULP being part of RFC2518bis *please* review
>> this?
>>
>> Julian
>>
>> -- 
>> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>>
>
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 13:30:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:03 GMT