- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 17:19:47 -0700
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 09:40:35 -0700, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> It depends on whether we're going for Draft Standard or not -- and it >> was my understanding that Ted is keeping the WG open so we can bring >> WebDAV to Draft Standard. To go to Draft Standard, we need to take a >> Proposed Standard and remove the options that aren't implemented, >> interoperable and tested 2x2. > > Yes. Every server that supports collections as WebDAV compliant > resources already supports this feature. And every client that issues a > PROPFIND without using other WebDAV methods already uses it. I'm not > sure what kind of additional test you're looking for. That's not how I read it. I understood that paragraph as saying that a server could call something a collection (using the resourcetype property) but have it be non-WebDAV-compliant resources. In fact "not be WebDAV compliant" is in the first sentence. So that's why I asked if anybody had implemented non-WebDAV-compliant resources that still had the DAV:collection element in the DAV:resourcetype property. I can imagine how one might use this -- for example, it might show up in its parent as a collection yet not itself support direct PROPFIND requests -- but I am unaware of any implementations. > >> Another option that isn't broadly implemented, if at all, is the >> support for locks that aren't write locks or aren't exclusive locks >> (since only exclusive write locks are fully defined). Are there any >> implementations at all that do locks that aren't write locks? Didn't >> Adobe or somebody implement shared locks? > > Me confused. > > The only type of locks defined in RFC2518 are write locks. Write locks > can be shared or exclusive, and there are both servers implementing this > and clients using it. Looking at > <http://www.webdav.org/wg/rfcdev/issues.htm>, issue #96, the WG has > discussed this over three years ago and concluced that they are indeed > implemented. > I also figured that shared locks were implemented already although I'm not sure they satisfy the 2x2 test requirement. But what about non-write locks? Has anybody implemented locks that aren't write locks and don't advertise themselves as such? The way this impacts the document is that sections 6 and 7 could be merged if there are effectively only write locks. Section 6 discusses locks, section 7 discusses specifically write locks. Lisa
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2005 00:20:00 UTC