RE: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)

The only argument for not doing so is that being more
specific probably requires including the entire GULP
document, since that is needed to clearly define the difference
between locking a resource and protecting a URL.
But I don't think we want to include that information by
copy in each protocol extension document, so I think it
is more appropriate to get it into 2518bis, and refer to
it from the other documents.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Korver [mailto:briank@xythos.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 1:41 PM
To: WebDAV
Subject: Re: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)



On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 01:35  PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
> I suppose that covers it.  Hopefully the reader understands the 
> situations
> that
> that covers.

I'd like to vote in favor of providing enough specificity
that the reader will understand the situations it covers.
Are there any good arguments for not doing so?


>
> One question though... does it have to be a write-lock?  I suspect
> this precondition even applies to non-write locks.
>
>
>
-brian
briank@xythos.com

Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 15:14:15 UTC