- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:01:21 +0100
- To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- CC: webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > > I believe that you are basing your conclusion on the assumption > that the authoring client can ignore the rewriting that is being > done by the server. In that case, I (and I'm reasonably sure, Dan) > would agree that there is no need for the server to cancel the LOCK. > > But the case being discussed here is where the server has > rewritten the text and wants the client to base future edits on the > rewritten text. You may say "my server would never do that" or even > "I would never use a server that did that" (in which case you might > not want to spend any more time on this thread :-), but in case > the server did do that (and I have scenarios in which I can imagine > a server wanting to do that), I believe that automatically breaking > the lock is a good way of getting this point across to existing clients > (who don't know about the 205 convention). > > Cheers, > Geoff Geoff, could you post an example scenario? I really have a hard time understanding why it would make a difference in practice... Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 14:03:23 UTC