- 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