- From: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 16:35:11 +0000
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
"Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote: > I will be posting a proposal for the "state-lock" locking variant soon. > One meta-question: This could be a new SLOCK method, or a State > header to the existing LOCK method ... does anyone have a preference? I think it comes down to the question: how terrible will it be if a client asks a base DAV server for a state lock and the server thinks it's asking for a name lock? -- /=============================================================\ |John Stracke | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK | |francis@ecal.com|============================================| |Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed | |eCal Corp. | by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch | \=============================================================/
Received on Friday, 9 April 1999 12:33:03 UTC