- From: Elias <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:33:40 -0800
- To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I agree, the specification should clearly define all of the WebDAV methods such that referring to a secondary text is not necessary. The proposed changes to remove the references to bindings don't seem to affect GULP semantics so I would support adding the revised version to 2518bis. Elias Stefan Eissing wrote: > > I think GULP should, with the proposed changes, go into RFC2518 bis. > > LOCKing semantics need to be defined in 2518bis and not in any > side-track specification (sorry Goeff ;). > > //Stefan > > Am Freitag, 07.03.03, um 15:23 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Julian > Reschke: > >> >> Hi. >> >> I'd really like to see some progress regarding this issue. In >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0281.html >> >> I have tried to rephrase GULP so that it doesn't require the term >> "binding" >> anymore. This should address the concerns of those who fear that a >> dependency on the BIND spec is introduced. >> >> To those who did object to GULP being part of RFC2518bis *please* review >> this? >> >> Julian >> >> -- >> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 >> >
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 13:30:23 UTC