- From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:56:41 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Actually, I meant to say "I am willing to work with Julian on this document", (but I am in fact also willing to work with Jason on this document :-). Cheers, Geoff Geoff wrote on 01/17/2004 07:53:34 AM: > > I am willing to work with Jason on this document. > > Cheers, > Geoff > > Julian wrote on 01/16/2004 03:12:01 PM: > > > > > In an off-list mail, Geoff Clemm wrote: > > > > > I would strongly advocate separating locking from base WebDAV > > > functionality > > > for the following reasons: > > > > > > - WebDAV is already a family of specs (3253, ACL, redirect, > ordering), > > > each of which defines an optional feature-package beyond what > > > is defined > > > in the base spec. It would be more consistent to handle locking > > > (which is an optional feature-package) the same way. > > > > > > - Having a smaller "base WebDAV spec" I believe will make WebDAV more > > > accessible to new implementors, since the base spec will be > > > less daunting in size. You don't have to > > > read/understand the locking extensions to > > > understand versioning, ACL, redirect, or ordering, but the current > > > packaging of locking in with the base protocol makes it look > > > like you do. > > > > > > - It allows us to make more rapid progress on getting the locking > > > functionality standardized (i.e. it doesn't have to wait until we've > > > resolved all the other issues in 2518bis). > > > > I agree on all these points. However, for this plan to work we need > > > > - buy-in from the RFC2518bis authors (Lisa and Jason), > > - volunteers for the new document and > > - broad support from the working group members (that is, this mailing > list) >
Received on Saturday, 17 January 2004 07:56:47 UTC