- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:26:24 +0100
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 1:42 AM > To: Daniel Brotsky; Julian Reschke > Cc: Jason Crawford; Clemm, Geoff; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org; Julian Reschke > Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER > > ... > > So my position is pretty similar to Dan's: make it clear that DAV:owner is > owned by clients, and don't add any way for servers to insert lock owner > principal information. I prefer any other extensions to DAV to be done > outside the base spec since they are clearly not needed for basic > interoperability and would delay Draft Standard. One could also take the position that we're *fixing* an interoperability problem. The current RFC says [1]: "The owner XML element provides information sufficient for either directly contacting a principal (such as a telephone number or Email URI), or for discovering the principal (such as the URL of a homepage) who owns a lock." Right now it doesn't, because it's format is unspecified (and examples in the draft are inconsistent). To understand the implications of adding a new field, it would be useful to have some idea about which timeframe we speak. Any guess how long it will take until a new edition could be submitted? If it's a matter of several months, I'd suggest adding the new element (it shouldn't hurt as long it's optional, well-defined, and we can demonstrate interoperability). [1] <http://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#ELEMENT_owner>
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 03:26:30 UTC