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

RE: Bind issues

From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:35:58 -0500
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <nnlisa___at___xythos.com@smallcue.com>
Cc: "'Julian Reschke'" <nnjulian.reschke___at___gmx.de@smallcue.com>, nnw3c-dist-auth___at___w3.org@smallcue.com
Message-ID: <OF454CBB3D.E5585C19-ON85256DF0.007B8F1A-85256DF0.007C2450@us.ibm.com>
On Monday, 12/01/2003 at 01:30 PST, "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com> 
wrote:
> 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.

An appendix?
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 17:36:40 GMT

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