- From: <Mark_Day/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:03:32 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Explaining why range locking was required, Jim <ejw@ics.uci.edu> wrote: 'Discussion on this issue at Irvine was mostly concerning the development of "yet another range identification scheme," rather than "we should remove range locking from the requirements." In fact, this has been a requirement since last October, and has passed several reviews. In a nutshell, the rationale for this requirement is that certain application programs (typically word processors) which perform range management within a file (typically using a table with fixed width entries, located at the beginning of the file, each entry containing range information), would find sub-resource locking to be very useful.' Jim's memory of this discussion differs from mine. I remember the flavor being much more at the level of saying that range locking was incompatible with one of the stated design principles (that resources are the lockable entities). Further, range locking seemed to be a hack to accommodate legacy clients, rather than being part of a coherent design for how distributed authoring and versioning works on the Internet. I had the impression in Irvine that there was rough consensus that the group's purpose was to devise a good design for the Internet going forward, not just a web veneer for existing servers and clients. BTW, I find it dubious that "having passed several reviews" would somehow make a requirement more correct or virtuous. I thought the whole point of having further meetings and reviews was to discover problems not previously exposed. --Mark Mark_Day@lotus.com
Received on Thursday, 20 February 1997 13:52:45 UTC