- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 11:21:44 -0800
- To: "'Fabio Vitali'" <fabio@CS.UniBO.IT>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I second the motion. Let the requirements document read:"Whereas documents may contain defined sections, specified by such concepts as pages, chapters, and byte ranges, and whereas the purpose of DAV is to facilitate the editing of a single document simultaneously by multiple users, and whereas often multiple users wish to independently edit different sections of a document, let the DAV protocol provide a mechanism to identify these defined sections and determine their URLs so as to prevent collisions amongst multiple users." Or something less pompous than that =) Yaron >-----Original Message----- >From: Fabio Vitali [SMTP:fabio@CS.UniBO.IT] >Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 1997 10:58 AM >To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org >Subject: Re: Last call: range locking > >I personally wouldn't mind having some precedents on how to deal with >arbitrary subparts of a resource. There will be many more situations >besides locking in which handling subparts will become useful. > >Two points I would like to stress: > >a) "Ranges", as in "byte-ranges", are too restrictive and implementation >oriented for being really and generally useful. Can't we provide a more >fuzzy and evocative term? > >b) Specifying the management of subparts as one of the requirements that >WebDAV needs to discuss does not mean that solutions need to be invented >anew. > >So I believe we should definitely state an agreeable requirement for >managing partial resources, and then happily discuss on range URLs or >RANGELOCK or whatever. > >As I have learnt the hard way from Yaron :-), we should keep requirements >and implementation separated. We can have as many and as different >requirements as we care, and the discussion needs to be on their >justifications only. > >When someone proposes a solution, well, the relevant requirements should >have been accepted already. > >Therefore, if eventually range URLs will be commonplace, we will find out >that the requirement of partial locks is already and naturally satisfied by >a plain lock on a range URL, and we won't need to deal with it any further. > >>Pro Range Locking - Steve Carter, Yaron Y. Goland, and Gregory J. >>Woodhouse, >>Anti Range Locking - Larry Masinter, Mark Day, and Fabio Vitali > >Er, it's not that I am anti range locking, I am anti locking tout court, as >I believe we will have to face problems with *any* kind of locks, although >I'll admit that problems with ranges will be more frequent than with other >types of locking. > >Fabio > >Fabio Vitali Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly, >Dept of Computer Science Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?' >Univ. of Bologna ITALY Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land, >e-mail: fabio@cs.unibo.it Man got to tell himself he understand. > Kurt Vonnegut >
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 1997 14:21:39 UTC