- 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