- From: Steve Carter <SRCarter@novell.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 08:54:31 -0700
- To: quentinc@microsoft.com, masinter@parc.xerox.com
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
To further quote Larry
>It might be that in one implementation
>"http://server.dom/resource/bytes=1-12"
>is a byte range of "http://server.dom/resource", but we don't need to
>standardize
>on that, only the relationship between them.
With that I agreed that the issues does not have to be a protocol issue. -src
>>> Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> 03/04/97 05:25AM >>>
Quentin:
Your testimonial not withstanding, the issue is NOT whether "byte range
locking" is a useful feature in operating systems. The issue is not
about the feature at all. We're not designing an operating system, we're
designing a network protocol for web authoring.
Or, to quote myself from a private conversation about this:
> 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".
>
The Internet already has many network protocols for file systems.
WEBDAV is not, and should not become, a network protocol for
file system replacement. (If that's what you want, why, we already
have NFS and CIFS to contend with.)
--
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
!
!
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 1997 10:56:23 UTC