- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 01:27:15 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
From: "Eric Sedlar" <esedlar@us.oracle.com> Why are you still allowing the "lock-null" approach (now renamed as the dummy namespace lock)? I thought one of the goals of GULP was to get rid of that horrible concept. Actually, it is the "lock null resource" concept that I strenuously object to, not the concept that a lock can be on a target that does not yet exist. I believe being able to create a lock on a target that does not yet exist is no worse/harder than namespace protection, so I would include it in any proposal that includes namespace protection. Also, the "grand unified" aspect of GULP was intended to allow us to model everything that folks have been asking for, and then with that in hand, we can decide which parts to defer (possibly indefinitely). Cheers, Geoff
Received on Saturday, 15 January 2000 01:27:18 UTC