- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 20:03:56 PST
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- CC: "'Jim Whitehead'" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I don't think it makes sense to declare "range locking" either
"in scope" or "out of scope".
There are three things we have to decide:
1) what's the problem we're trying to solve
This is what we beat out in the charter.
We're trying to solve "distributed authoring and
versioning" mainly for "connected clients" with
a focus on "interoperability"
2) What are the technical requirements for
such a solution. This is where we decide
whether we need to do locking or transactions.
3) What's the protocol for meeting the technical
requirements of (2) in search of (1).
"range locking" doesn't belong in the
charter because it doesn't say what problem we're
solving, just one way to solve one kind of problem.
It might or might belong in (2), depending on whether
anyone has some credible example of how it's a functional
capability needed to solve (1). (Testimonials that
seven vendors all like this doesn't count.)
Whether it then belongs in the protocol depends on
whether we have a requirement for it, and then we
can beat out whether "range locking" is accompished
by using LOCK on a range URL or by using the LOCKRANGE
verb or by using something more semantically meaningful.
--
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 1997 00:04:14 UTC