On Monday, 12/01/2003 at 01:30 PST, "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com> wrote: > I don't have a problem with GULP. What I'm trying to do is make sure it > fits into the WebDAV specification. Sure, we could bung it in randomly, > any section remotely related to locking. Instead, however, I tried to > > - keep to the structure of the spec > - have the spec be linguistically consistent with GULP > - have the spec be logically consistent with GULP > > I'd still like to hear how this could be better, for example whether any > subtlety was lost in the way GULP was incorporated. > > But if you think this is irrelevant and you want to call a vote, Jim can > determine consensus. Please indicate where you would like me to put GULP > into RFC2518bis. An appendix?
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 17:36:40 UTC