- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:38:33 +0100
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Sounds good. I think we should also consider defining standard LOCK privileges. Here's a proposal for DAV:lockowner (I take the freedom to rename it): <contact-URI-set xmlns="DAV:" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <contact-URI xlink:href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de">EMail</contact-URI> <contact-URI xlink:href="tel:+492512807760">Work Phone</contact-URI> </contact-URI-set> DTD fragment: <!ELEMENT contact-URI-set (contact-URI*)> <!ELEMENT contact-URI #PCDATA> <!-- contains human-displayable information qualifying the link --> <!ATTLIST contact-URI xlink:type (simple) #FIXED "simple" xlink:href CDATA #IMPLIED xlink:role CDATA #IMPLIED xlink:title CDATA #IMPLIED> > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 8:28 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org > Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER > > > I would describe our conclusion as: > > We need to define a new field, say DAV:lockowner, that is specified > in a LOCK request, and that takes an XML value. We will define > some standard elements for that value. > > We should then deprecate the use of the DAV:owner field, as a field > that contains non-interoperable data about the lock owner. > > Cheers, > Geoff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:35 PM > To: Daniel Brotsky; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org; Lisa Dusseault > Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER > > > > It sounds like we've concluded that we can't reuse the lockowner field > because we've already specified that it's free text. > > Do we still have the requirement mentioned at... > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2001JulSep/0218.html > says... > > regarding identifying the owner of a lock? If so, now that we've had some > discussion on this topic, can someone provide an improved > definition of the > requirement? And a proposal? Dan? Lisa? Geoff? Julian? > > J. > > ------------------------------------------ > Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com >
Received on Saturday, 19 January 2002 15:39:06 UTC