- From: Ron Daniel Jr. <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
- Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 08:41:47 -0700
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
At 03:25 AM 3/4/97 PST, Larry Masinter wrote: >> 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". I agree with Larry on this. If we can do locks based on URIs, then we have the ability to identify the resource that is bytes n..m of some other resource and lock it. Maybe I've just missed them, but I haven't seen any real arguments on why this is insufficient and why the only good way to implement this functionality is to make it a part of some special protocol, such as a new LOCKRANGE method for HTTP. Regards, Ron Daniel Jr. voice:+1 505 665 0597 Advanced Computing Lab fax:+1 505 665 4939 MS B287 email:rdaniel@lanl.gov Los Alamos National Lab http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel Los Alamos, NM, USA, 87545
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 1997 10:42:30 UTC