- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@atria.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 13:28:01 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, francis@ecal.com
I believe the answer is "not terrible at all". If so, I assume the answer is "do it as a header to LOCK" ? Cheers, Geoff > From: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com> > > "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? >
Received on Friday, 9 April 1999 13:28:12 UTC