- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:27:52 +0100
- To: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Jason Crawford wrote: > Perhaps another option is to create a separate rfc for GULP. I assume > it could be published faster that 2518bis and it could be referenced by > multiple related documents without suggesting that it bears a special > relationship with binding support. I thought about that as well. How about a separate document called "Locking Simplifications to WebDAV" that - contains GULP - contains the locking clarifications from RFC2518bis (refresh, lock-token header, submission of lock tokens) - contains the locking simplifications from RFC2518bis (lock-null) - contains the locking extensions from RFC2518bis as optional features (DAV:rootlock) This would become a Proposed Draft, updating but not obsoleting RFC2518 and RFC3253. If we can agree on scope and procedure, I'm willing to help writing it. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 04:28:01 UTC