- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:58:36 -0800 (PST)
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 ccjason@us.ibm.com wrote: >... > We don't say that /a/c.html is locked or at least not the resource > at that URI. You could say that the binding from /a/ to the /a/c.html > is locked. And depending on our definitions of "internal member" we > might actually be able to say that the internal member was added to > the lock. Depending on language like this in a spec is simply going to ensure that nobody truly understands the thing. Can't we step back from all this pedantic, theoretical stuff? Sure, it helps to rigorously define semantics, but (IMO) at the cost of most mortals' understanding of the result. Maybe plainer English can't do the job, but we ought to try, or questions like this will continue to come up. People reading the spec ought to be using their noggin, too. Missing three words from the spec shouldn't trap somebody. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Friday, 26 November 1999 14:58:16 UTC