- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 00:53:00 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com <yaron> Names aren't members of collections, resources are. </yaron> This is where you went wrong. Collections don't contain resources, their members are segments that are bound to some resource managed by the server. So from the point of view of locking, adding a member to a locked collection does require a lock token even if locks are on names only. I agree that the statement "names aren't members of collections" is problematic (the term "member" is ambiguous, since 2518 uses both the term "member URI" and the term "member resource"), but I don't see that Yaron went wrong in any way. He said that in the "URL locking" model, placing a lock on a URL does not add a new member to a collection, and therefore does not affect the state of the collection, and therefore does not require the lock token. I agree with all this. Note that Yaron was not saying that he approved of the URL locking model, but rather was just making sure he understood what was being proposed before commenting on it (a highly commendable modus operandi). Cheers, Geoff
Received on Friday, 31 December 1999 00:53:02 UTC