- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:13:44 -0500
- To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
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