- From: Nevermann, Dr., Peter <Peter.Nevermann@softwareag.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:22:49 +0100
- To: "'Lisa Dusseault'" <lisa@xythos.com>
- Cc: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Interoperability problems with some clients may arise when adding an
DAV:principal-URL element to the DAV:lockdiscovery property.
In the case of Microsoft Office2000 (e.g. Word), I noticed that it depends
on the *order* of the child elements inside the DAV:activelock element. If
the DAV:principal-URL element doesn't come *last*, as in the attached sample
PROPFIND response, Word doesn't seem to send correctly the Lock-Token:
header. This occurs,for example, when creating a new resource: the PUT
request following the LOCK request (which initially created a lock-null
resource) sends Lock-Token: <>.
Regards,
Peter
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<D:multistatus xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:response xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:href>/taminowebdavserver/mycoll/foo/Hello.doc</D:href>
<D:propstat>
<D:prop>
<D:lockdiscovery>
<D:activelock>
<D:locktype>
<D:write />
</D:locktype>
<D:lockscope>
<D:exclusive />
</D:lockscope>
<D:depth>infinity</D:depth>
<D:owner><![CDATA[pn]]></D:owner>
<D:principal-URL>
<D:href>/users/localhost/davuser</D:href>
</D:principal-URL>
<D:timeout>Second-60</D:timeout>
<D:locktoken>
<D:href>opaquelocktoken:a1c232a71a2bfa5f2008fb162ccaecdb</D:href>
</D:locktoken>
</D:activelock>
</D:lockdiscovery>
</D:prop>
<D:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status>
</D:propstat>
</D:response>
</D:multistatus>
Regards,
Peter Nevermann
Software AG, Research & Development
Uhlandstr. 12, D-64297 Darmstadt
+49-6151-92-1828
http://developer.softwareag.com/tamino/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 20:42
> To: Webdav WG
> Subject: Finding out who locked a resource
>
>
>
>
> One of the things that 2518 didn't try to do, because it had to finish
> in finite time, was to specify exactly how a lock owner is
> shown. One of
> the problems was there was no way to identify users.
>
> Now that Access control exists, there is a way to identify users, and
> the problem can be solved much more nicely. I suggest we add
> an element
> "principal-URL" to the lock properties. The element is defined in the
> Access control specification, but it would appear inside the
> "lockinfo"
> element as part of the "lockdiscovery" property. This wouldn't
> interfere with the "owner" element, which already is used by some
> clients.
>
> My approach would be to add this to access control, since that will
> probably get this useful element standardized sooner. "A server MUST
> include the principal-URL element inside the lockinfo element of a
> lockdiscovery property value, if the LOCK request that
> created the lock
> successfully authenticated as a known principal."
>
> Lisa
>
>
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 07:23:31 UTC