- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:24:47 -0500
- To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
GULP is actually pretty short, so I probably wouldn't mind adding a copy to the binding protocol *if* we get consensus that GULP correctly defines the WebDAV locking semantics. What I don't want to have happen is for the binding protocol to become a draft standard and then have RFC-2518bis decide that some GULP variant is needed, and have the binding RFC conflict with 2518bis RFC (with the resulting interoperability problems inevitably appearing). So I'll take this opportunity to again ask everyone to either explicitly support the current GULP proposal, or identify any problems in semantics or terminology, so we can get this language committed to 2518bis ASAP. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Brian Korver [mailto:briank@xythos.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 8:31 PM To: WebDAV Subject: Re: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues) On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 01:50 PM, Clemm, Geoff wrote: > > 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. Given that I think that the binding draft needs to be more explicit about the behavior of locks, what would be so awful about including some of GULP? > 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 -brian briank@xythos.com
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 21:26:11 UTC