- From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:21:41 -0400
- To: jamsden@us.ibm.com
- cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>> As Geoff pointed out, to have a (singleton) destination lock retained on COPY or MOVE requires a significant number of special cases. >> Maybe I misinterpretted what it was that he Geoff felt was inconsistant. He didn't mention singleton, depth or even exclusive locks. For this reason, the inconsistancy that I thought he depicted applies to singleton and depth locks equally... and exclusive and shared... and that's what I addressed in my response to his note.
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 1999 14:23:09 UTC