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

Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:01:21 +0100
Message-ID: <43AAB1B1.3000000@gmx.de>
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
CC: webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> 
> I believe that you are basing your conclusion on the assumption
> that the authoring client can ignore the rewriting that is being
> done by the server.  In that case, I (and I'm reasonably sure, Dan)
> would agree that there is no need for the server to cancel the LOCK.
> 
> But the case being discussed here is where the server has
> rewritten the text and wants the client to base future edits on the  
> rewritten text.  You may say "my server would never do that" or even
> "I would never use a server that did that" (in which case you might
> not want to spend any more time on this thread :-), but in case
> the server did do that (and I have scenarios in which I can imagine
> a server wanting to do that), I believe that automatically breaking
> the lock is a good way of getting this point across to existing clients
> (who don't know about the 205 convention).
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff

Geoff,

could you post an example scenario? I really have a hard time 
understanding why it would make a difference in practice...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 14:03:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:12 GMT