- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:24:07 +0200
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Lisa, please re-read my mail. I was saying that we need to define what the state of a resource is. In particular its - content - internal members (depth 0 lock on collections) - dead properties - locks - *some* live properties (such as DAV:label) -- this is where it'll get hairy, I guess Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 7:20 PM > To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'Webdav WG' > Subject: RE: GULP (version 4) > > > > > "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." > > This isn't much more specific than the current "is affected by" > language. It leaves it entirely up to the server to decide what > modifying the state of a resource is. Does modifying membership count? > (Is modifying membership blocked by a depth 0 lock?) Does modifying > property values count? > > This is exactly where clients have had problems submitting simple > requests to server implementations that each have a different idea what > resources have state modified by the request. > > lisa >
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 13:24:43 UTC