W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:05:47 -0800
Message-Id: <edcf30bef01459e2315444d45167ecf5@osafoundation.org>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Good question, and I'm not sure -- it depends what the consequences are 
of assuming this distinction.  It seemed like a useful distinction 
until it led to what, to me, were unexpected or undesired consequences.

Do any servers implement multiple URLs, locking and DELETE (regardless 
of whether they support the exact model of BIND)?   If so, what do 
existing implementations do?

lisa

On Dec 14, 2005, at 12:55 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> Well, I disagree with that model.  I propose that all methods work 
>> the same on all bindings to a resource with respect to requiring the 
>> lock token, including DELETE.
>
> Hm. Trying to clarify...: are you also opposed to distinguish between 
> resources being locked and URLs being protected? Or is this 
> terminology you agree with that we can use in our discussions?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2005 21:06:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT