- From: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:29:11 -0800
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194
Summary: LOCK_ISSUES_WRITE_LOCKS_AND_COLLECTIONS
Product: WebDAV-RFC2518-bis
Version: -08
Platform: Other
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-
auth/1999AprJun/0246.html
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: 07. Write Lock
AssignedTo: joe-bugzilla@cursive.net
ReportedBy: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
QAContact: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Reported by Jason Crawford in
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1999AprJun/0246.html>:
Section 7.5 Write Locks and Collections.
It says that if members are locked in a conflicting manner, then their
collection can't be locked. That seems ambiguously safe to say, but I suspect
that text should mention depth since if the parent lock request is depth 0, I
don't think we let the members lock state effect the success of the LOCK
request. The possible exception is what we said about protecting a URI that was
used to perform a lock (of a member of the collection). I'm not sure what we'd
like to say for that. In the advanced collection meetings we refered to these
being "protected" and avoided speaking about "lock"ing the URI. This creates an
odd situation though.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Monday, 21 November 2005 17:29:21 UTC