- From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:24:55 -0500
- To: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
How about for REBIND: (DAV:lock-deleted): If the URL specified in the DAV:href element in the request body was protected by a write-lock at the time of the request, that write-lock must have been deleted by the request. And something similar for UNBIND. Cheers, Geoff Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 03/19/2004 09:11:47 AM: > >>>>>Does REBIND destroy locks, as MOVE does? It shouldn't, unless > >>>>>there's a compelling reason for backward compatibility. > >>>> > >>>>No, it should. REBIND is a "strong" MOVE (that will never attempt a > >>>>"weak" resource move using COPY/DELETE). That's the only semantical > >>>>difference to MOVE, and thus locks behave just like they do with > > > > I agree with Julian that locking semantics require this behavior, and I > > agree that it would be reasonable to add this as an explicit > > post-condition > > of the REBIND method. We would then need to add a similar post-condition > > to > > the UNBIND method. > > .. > > Can you suggest a specific text?
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 14:25:33 UTC