- From: Steve Carter <SRCarter@GW.NOVELL.COM>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:40:15 -0700
- To: masinter@parc.xerox.com, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
You are right, the protocol does not need to deal with the range lock. If needed it can be performed at the resource level. If a DMS manages documents via a database then the resource name becomes the access name for the document. I believe we are no longer at cross purposes. -src >>> Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> 02/25/97 07:51AM >>> Steve, You keep on talking about function, and I'm talking about protocol. The issue isn't whether the function needs to get exposed, the issue is whether the protocol needs to be aware of it. I don't see any good reason why the protocol needs to get more complicated to deal with "byte range locking" when "resource locking" covers it, because a "byte range" can be a "resource". Is there really a disagreement, or are we just talking at cross purposes? Larry
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 1997 19:41:05 UTC