RE: Last call: range locking

Perhaps you missed my previous posting on the issue of byte range
locking where I specifically recommended against the use of URL hacking.
Instead I proposed a method to help identify URLs for a particular range
of a document, where range could be page, chapter, byte range, etc. You
can read my post at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/msg00645.html. As you
will note in the post, the proposal requires the introduction of a new
method. Thus there is certainly something to be standardized in DAV.
	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	dgd@cs.bu.edu [SMTP:dgd@cs.bu.edu]
> Sent:	Tuesday, March 04, 1997 12:09 PM
> To:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	RE: Last call: range locking
> 
> At 11:21 AM -0800 3/4/97, Yaron Goland wrote:
> >I second the motion. Let the requirements document read:"Whereas
> >documents may contain defined sections, specified by such concepts as
> >pages, chapters, and byte ranges, and whereas the purpose of DAV is
> to
> >facilitate the editing of a single document simultaneously by
> multiple
> >users, and whereas often multiple users wish to independently edit
> >different sections of a document, let the DAV protocol provide a
> >mechanism to identify these defined sections and determine their URLs
> so
> >as to prevent collisions amongst multiple users."
> >Or something less pompous than that =)
> 
> Since I'm with Fabio in being anti-locking generally, though I agree
> with
> him that we need to accommodate it for those who want it -- why not
> say
> that it's a requirement that DAV not _PREVENT_ such sub-resource
> locking
> behavior.
> 
>     I don't think we're going to put in URL-hacking rules for
> fractional
> resources -- and I don't think that we should. Servers can provide
> whatever
> resources they want, and those may in fact overlap in terms of the
> _server's storage model_ -- but this requires no special support in
> the
> protocol. It will require a lot of work for the server, but that's
> it's
> problem.
> 
>    So essentially, I think Jim's first post is right (and Larry is
> right)
> there's no need to mention range locking in the requirements because
> it's a
> _result_ of support for resource locking -- for any servers that wish
> to
> create resources to represent lockable ranges. So we may have lockable
> ranges, but I don't think there's any reason that they need to be in
> the
> requirements, or the protocol explicitly. They need to be in the
> documentation for servers that need to provide sub-resources.
> 
>   -- David
> 
> _________________________________________
> David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
> Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
> http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
> --------------------------------------------\
> http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
> MAPA: mapping for the WWW
> \__________________________
>

Received on Wednesday, 5 March 1997 00:23:28 UTC