- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:41:24 +0100
- To: John Baumgarten <jbaumgarten@apple.com>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
John Baumgarten wrote: > > BTW, at Apple (.Mac, that is) we will be moving away from lock-nulls > toward a 2518bis-06 style treatment of "namespace reservation". As > suggested, we create a zero-byte locked resource, but we add with a > special property "namespace-reservation" in our server namespace. The > value of this property is the lock-token that created it. > > We allow the following "legacy" behavior on a namespace-reservation > resource: > > 1. If converted by any PUT, the special property is removed. Thus the > resource is no longer a "namespace-reservation". > > 2. A MKCOL is allowed on this resource if the namespace-reservation > property is still present, which then removes the special property. > > 3. If an UNLOCK method is successfully executed on the resource passing > the lock-token that created the namespace-reservation, while it still > possess the special property, the resource is deleted. Successful > execution requires ownership of the lock. So, in the end they behave again like the original lock-null resources? What exactly is the point in making that change then? Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 13:41:58 UTC