- 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