RE: GULP (version 4)

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 10:50 PM
> To: 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: RE: GULP (version 4)
>
>
>    From: Stefan Eissing [mailto:stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de]
>    > > Geoff, you say in GULP4:
>    > >
>    > > - If a request would modify the content, dead properties, or
>    > > bindings of a locked resource, the request MUST fail unless the
>    > > lock-token for that lock is specified in the request.
>    > >
>    > > What are the "bindings of a locked resource"? The complete
>    > > DAV:parent-set of the resource or a specific binding or the
>    > > bindings of the resource  and all its parents?
>    > The bindings of a resource identify its internal members (and
>    > therefore only a collection has bindings).  The bindings "to" a
>    > resource would be identified in the DAV:parent-set.  I should
>    > reword this to make sure nobody is confused ... any suggestions?
>    How about:
>    "If a request would modify the content, dead properties, or the set
>    of bindings to children of a locked resource, the request MUST fail
>    unless the lock-token for that lock is specified in the request."
> Or how about:
> "If a request would modify the content or dead properties of a locked
> resource, or would modify the bindings of a locked collection, the
> request MUST fail unless the lock-token for that lock is specified in
> the request."

One more thing that comes to mind are locks on the resource. Are we missing
something else?

Proposal: split into two sentences, one defining the "state" of a resource,
the other saying:

"If a request would modify the state of a resource, the request MUST fail
unless the lock-token for that lock is specified in the request."


--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 04:25:21 UTC