- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:20:10 -0800
- To: <ejw@cs.ucsc.edu>
- Cc: "'WebDAV \(WebDAV WG\)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Sorry I've been a spectator on this one as well. I am uncomfortable about allowing loopback bindings at all, but I'm not sure what would improve the situation -- forbidding loopback bindings, fixing the lock interactions, or just letting server implementors sort things out. lisa On Dec 8, 2004, at 4:00 PM, Jim Whitehead wrote: > > Geoff Clemm writes: > >> But with the semantics that Jim suggests, some of those members will > remain >> mysteriously unlocked, and the editor just fails with "unexpectedly > missing >> lock" when the user attempts to edit (or even worse, allows the user >> to > edit >> an unlocked resource, without overwrite protection). > > and > >> Surely any server >> that is bold enough to support both binding loops and depth locking >> would >> support the DAV:lockroot property introduced a while ago to solve >> exactly >> this problem of not knowing where a lock comes from. > > These are good points. > > That, plus the fact that I'm getting nowhere in convincing anyone else > to > change the semantics of loopback bindings, leads me to concede this > point. > > It's now fine with me not to include any additional language in the > BIND > specification about locks and lookback bindings. > > - Jim > >
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2004 00:20:21 UTC