- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:50:04 -0500
- To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
From: Jason Crawford [mailto:nn683849@smallcue.com] On Monday, "Clemm, Geoff" wrote: > > How about: > > (DAV:locked-overwrite-allowed): If the collection already > contains a binding with the specified path segment, and if that > binding is protected by a write-lock, then the appropriate token > MUST be specified in an If request header. I suppose that covers it. Hopefully the reader understands the situations that that covers. I wouldn't want to tug any harder on that particular string (i.e. defining precisely what "protect" means), or else we'd end up needing to include most of the GULP (Grand Unified Locking Proposal) in the binding draft. One question though... does it have to be a write-lock? I suspect this precondition even applies to non-write locks. Since we currently only have definitions of the semantics of write locks, I try to avoid speculating on what semantics non-write locks may have some day. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 16:50:36 UTC