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

RE: Bind issues

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:30:18 -0800
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007b01c3b852$51971230$75c990c6@lisalap>


> > (As I've already said, I think all the language from GULP *is* in 
> > RFC2518bis.  I may have missed something and I'm happy to have it
pointed
> > out, but due to the dependency issue, whether or not that's complete or
> > agreed upon may not be relevant to bindings status)

> Well, GULP is the result of many mailing list members trying to come up 
> with the best possible explanation of how locks work in WebDAV 
> (completely independantly of the BIND spec, by the way). It's not only 
> about what is says, but also how it does that. Therefore, I think this 
> should be *the* normative statement, and that it belongs into the base 
> spec. Let's just vote on it, I don't think that any further discussion 
> about this will reveal any new arguments.

I don't have a problem with GULP.  What I'm trying to do is make sure it
fits into the WebDAV specification.  Sure, we could bung it in randomly,
any section remotely related to locking.  Instead, however, I tried to

 - keep to the structure of the spec 
 - have the spec be linguistically consistent with GULP
 - have the spec be logically consistent with GULP

I'd still like to hear how this could be better, for example whether any
subtlety was lost in the way GULP was incorporated.

But if you think this is irrelevant and you want to call a vote, Jim can 
determine consensus.  Please indicate where you would like me to put GULP
into RFC2518bis.

Lisa
Received on Monday, 1 December 2003 16:31:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT