- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:24:41 +0200
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> 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