- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 21:23:33 -0800
- To: "'dgd@cs.bu.edu'" <dgd@cs.bu.edu>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Perhaps you missed my previous posting on the issue of byte range locking where I specifically recommended against the use of URL hacking. Instead I proposed a method to help identify URLs for a particular range of a document, where range could be page, chapter, byte range, etc. You can read my post at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/msg00645.html. As you will note in the post, the proposal requires the introduction of a new method. Thus there is certainly something to be standardized in DAV. Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: dgd@cs.bu.edu [SMTP:dgd@cs.bu.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 1997 12:09 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: Last call: range locking > > At 11:21 AM -0800 3/4/97, Yaron Goland wrote: > >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 =) > > Since I'm with Fabio in being anti-locking generally, though I agree > with > him that we need to accommodate it for those who want it -- why not > say > that it's a requirement that DAV not _PREVENT_ such sub-resource > locking > behavior. > > I don't think we're going to put in URL-hacking rules for > fractional > resources -- and I don't think that we should. Servers can provide > whatever > resources they want, and those may in fact overlap in terms of the > _server's storage model_ -- but this requires no special support in > the > protocol. It will require a lot of work for the server, but that's > it's > problem. > > So essentially, I think Jim's first post is right (and Larry is > right) > there's no need to mention range locking in the requirements because > it's a > _result_ of support for resource locking -- for any servers that wish > to > create resources to represent lockable ranges. So we may have lockable > ranges, but I don't think there's any reason that they need to be in > the > requirements, or the protocol explicitly. They need to be in the > documentation for servers that need to provide sub-resources. > > -- David > > _________________________________________ > David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com > Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst > http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams > --------------------------------------------\ > http://dynamicDiagrams.com/ > MAPA: mapping for the WWW > \__________________________ >
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 1997 00:23:28 UTC