- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- Date: 1999年11月24日 11:35:06 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-Id: <9911241635.AA09030@tantalum>
From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> On 1999年11月23日, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote: > From: Kevin Wiggen <wiggs@xythos.com> >... > Re 7.5 > > A write lock on a collection, whether created by a "Depth: 0" or "Depth: > infinity" lock request, prevents the addition or removal of member URIs of > the collection by non-lock owners. > > I believe it says "internal member". Nope. It just says "member". Greg is correct. I must have been been misled by what I *wanted* it to say. But the next sentence in 7.5 says: As a consequence, when a principal issues a PUT or POST request to create a new resource under a URI which needs to be an internal member of a write locked collection to maintain HTTP namespace consistency, or issues a DELETE to remove a resource which has a URI which is an existing internal member URI of a write locked collection, this request MUST fail if the principal does not have a write lock on the collection. which leads one to believe that the intent was to talk about internal members. In any case, whatever the original intent may have been, I would propose that the statement in question be modified to explicitly state "internal member", since depth:0 locks should only affect the addition and removal of internal members. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 1999 11:35:22 UTC