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

RE: locking clarifications/extensions vs BIND draft vs RFC2518bis

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:27:13 -0800
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Elias Sinderson'" <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>
Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01c401c3ed00$5e8c6cf0$4601a8c0@lisalap>

Here's another idea.  What if we made locking required in the next
version of WebDAV?  Servers that support RFC2518 can always claim 
support for RFC2518 without changes but most servers support locking
anyway and wouldn't find this difficult.  For clients of course it's
no change at all.  Then WebDAV core would have almost no options.

lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 12:33 PM
> To: Elias Sinderson
> Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Re: locking clarifications/extensions vs BIND draft 
> vs RFC2518bis
> 
> 
> 
> Elias Sinderson wrote:
> > 
> > +1, for much the same reasons outlined in Geoff's post below.
> > 
> > Q: 2518 defines two levels of compliance, depending on 
> whether locking 
> > is supported or not - would it make sense to try and extend this 
> > approach to cover all of the related specs?
>  > ...
> 
> I thought that this is what they're doing already?
> 
> Julian
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> 
Received on Friday, 6 February 2004 17:45:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:51 UTC