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

Question on GULP - resources added to locked collection

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:14:23 -0800
To: webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-Id: <e364035c1e3b6be586a99b65cce3cdc2@osafoundation.org>

Looking closely at the text of GULP, point the third (from  
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004AprJun/ 
0177.html>):

"- If a collection is directly locked by a depth:infinity lock, all
    members of that collection (other than the collection itself) are
    indirectly locked by that lock.  In particular, if an internal
    member resource is added to a collection that is locked by a
    depth:infinity lock, and if the resource is not locked by that lock,
    then the resource becomes indirectly locked by that lock.
    Conversely, if a resource is indirectly locked with a depth:infinity
    lock, and if the result of deleting an internal member URI is that
    the resource is no longer a member of the collection that is
    directly locked by that lock, then the resource is no longer locked
    by that lock."

The part that confuses me is "if the resource is not locked by that  
lock".  I am not sure how that can be the case, and if it can never  
happen, then the clause should be removed from the sentence.  Even if  
it can happen, I think the sentence is even more true without that  
clause:

    "In particular, if an internal member resource is added to
    a collection that is locked by a depth:infinity lock,
    then the resource becomes indirectly locked by that lock."

Is that correct?

Thanks,
Lisa
Received on Thursday, 29 December 2005 23:14:35 GMT

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