- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:01:03 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
No, we don't currently have standard locking privileges, but the proposal I support is to add them. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 10:51 AM To: Clemm, Geoff; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 4:44 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org > Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER > > > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > > Well, if the set of principals with the ability to unlock the > resource is bigger than one, why not report all of them (or a > subset whicht the server thinks makes sense)? > > That's exactly what the DAV:acl property would do (i.e. > the ACEs for DAV:can-unlock). Yes, but we don't have a standard privilege for this, right?
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 12:02:07 UTC