- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:14:23 -0800
- To: webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <e364035c1e3b6be586a99b65cce3cdc2@osafoundation.org>
Looking closely at the text of GULP, point the third (from
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004AprJun/
0177.html>):
"- If a collection is directly locked by a depth:infinity lock, all
members of that collection (other than the collection itself) are
indirectly locked by that lock. In particular, if an internal
member resource is added to a collection that is locked by a
depth:infinity lock, and if the resource is not locked by that lock,
then the resource becomes indirectly locked by that lock.
Conversely, if a resource is indirectly locked with a depth:infinity
lock, and if the result of deleting an internal member URI is that
the resource is no longer a member of the collection that is
directly locked by that lock, then the resource is no longer locked
by that lock."
The part that confuses me is "if the resource is not locked by that
lock". I am not sure how that can be the case, and if it can never
happen, then the clause should be removed from the sentence. Even if
it can happen, I think the sentence is even more true without that
clause:
"In particular, if an internal member resource is added to
a collection that is locked by a depth:infinity lock,
then the resource becomes indirectly locked by that lock."
Is that correct?
Thanks,
Lisa
Attachments
- text/enriched attachment: stored
Received on Thursday, 29 December 2005 23:14:35 UTC