- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:24:04 +0200
- To: "Keith Wannamaker" <Keith@Wannamaker.org>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Keith Wannamaker > > | The current implementations have demonstrated that lock null resources > | are not a basis for interoperability. > > This statement has been mentioned several times, in one form or > another, in this thread. Do you have documentation or test cases > for these interoperability problems? One example is Microsoft IIS which does not implement lock-null resources as specified in 2518. E.g. MKCOL will not work and lock-null resources will not disappear after lock timeout. > When I did the initial locknull implementation for mod_dav, it seemed > to me that the notion of a lock-null resource as presented in 2518 > was very clear and logical. On what have implementors disagreed? mod_dav is an excellent implementation. > It seems to me that we gain more from the work already done and > implemented to clarify, if needed, rather than abandon. > The point made is that the specified behaviour might not be worth the effort. Limiting the lock-null requirements could result in making (server) implementations easier without giving up any functionality. The benefit for clients would be that more servers will comply to the spec. //Stefan
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 04:24:46 UTC