- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:50:31 -0800
- To: "'Larry Masinter'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: "'dgd@cs.bu.edu'" <dgd@cs.bu.edu>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Translating from Larry Speak - The idea has merit, so he wants to know more. I will have a full blown proposal to the group before the end of next week. The proposal will contain my suggested solutions to a number of outstanding issues. Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 1997 9:58 PM > To: Yaron Goland > Cc: 'dgd@cs.bu.edu'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: Re: Last call: range locking > > I read the whole thing. I didn't take BYTEHEAD seriously (perhaps > it was your smiley) partly because the combination of HEAD and range > retrieval didn't seem to be adequate to discover the ways in > which a resource could logically be decomposed, much less the > proper way to find the names of the parts; your subsequent proposal > for LOCKSBYTE, being a kludge on top of a non-functional subproposal > didn't seem to be too serious either. > > If you do mean for these to be taken seriously, perhaps you'd > want to change "BYTE" to "RANGE" and deal with the issue of > disjoint ranges, the mechanism by which AcceptRanges might > be discovered, whether AcceptRanges applies to accepting locks > on ranges, etc. > > otherwise, it just bytes. > > Larry > > -- > http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter >
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 1997 13:57:57 UTC