- From: Geoffrey Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@Rational.Com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 13:37:44 -0500
- To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
From: Jim Davis <jrd3@alum.mit.edu> > At 11:35 AM 11/24/99 -0500, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote: > >... propose that the statement in question be modified to explicitly > >state "internal member", since depth:0 locks should only affect the > >addition and removal of internal members. > > internal members, as opposed to those added by, say, BIND? As opposed to members that are not internal members (where an internal member is as it is defined in rfc2518). For example, /a/b and /a/c are internal members of /a, while /a/b/x and /a/c/y are members of /a but are not internal members of /a. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 11:10:52 UTC