W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Issue #44: REPORT_OTHER_RESOURCE_LOCKED

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:26:29 -0400
To: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <OF5712EE22.77227AF7-ON85256EBD.00443E78-85256EBD.004464EE@us.ibm.com>
Good point ... it is probably simplest to leave it the way you
currently define it.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 06/24/2004 02:57:57 AM:

> Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> > 
> > This precondition sounds fine to me.
> > 
> > I wouldn't say it applies to all methods though; only methods that
> > modify state on the server (e.g., not PROPFIND or the various
> > REPORT's).
> 
> Right now it starts saying... "If a request would modify the content for 

> a locked resource, a dead property of a locked resource, a live 
> property that is defined to be lockable for a locked resource, or an 
> internal member URI of a locked collection,", thus it *does* apply to 
> all methods.
> 
> An alternative would be to re-group the conditions; but that would only 
> make case if we find more that fall into the same category...
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:27:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:06 GMT