- From: <edgar@edgarschwarz.de>
- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:23:58 +0200 (MEST)
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Cc: edgar@edgarschwarz.de
Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com> wrote: > Yes, I've had various discussions where it seemed that if one binding > to a resource was locked ... This could be read like a 'binding' can be locked. But it's the resource I think we agree hopefully. > Some of the details resulting from the lock model are even more > definitely > unclear. For example, can a client use UNLOCK on a binding that isn't > the > one that was locked? If not, what's the error? The spec must say > whether > a server MUST support UNLOCK on all bindings to a locked resource. I can't see your problem here. If a lock is on the resource and we tell that it doesn't matter which binding we use to access the resource IMHO it's obvious that this also applies to UNLOCK. So I don't think the prose you want is necessary. Or e.g. "UNLOCK like LOCK works on the resource." should be enough. Cheers, Edgar
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 17:24:01 UTC