- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:33:29 -0800
- To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> I thought we had agreement that GULP is the currently best approach of > explaining the WebDAV locking model. GULP also covers binds > (implicitly!) > and therefore either should be added to RFC2518bis, or be the > basis for a > rewrite: > GULP should not cover bindings. That's the problem. It causes a problem because some RFC2518 servers just don't work that way. There's no need to say whether operations apply always to URLs, bindings or resources in RFC2518, because when you have 1:1 mappings between URLs and resources it just doesn't matter 95% of the time, and lets implementations expose their existing repository. Otherwise, I think there is a lot of useful specification language in GULP. Lisa
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 15:33:30 UTC