- From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: 1999年11月29日 11:51:05 -0500
- To: "Geoffrey Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@Rational.Com>
- cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <85256838.005C94F1.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com>
Anyone that has a locking server or locking client (or knows of one) that would be significantly affected by this alteration or by any other locking changes, please send me a note or post it to this list. I'll add you to the locking mailing list. I just like to make sure I have a complete list of servers/clients (with email addresses) that are resistant to changes to locking due to 2518 compatibility issues and client base. --- note from Geoff Clemm follows ----- From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com> > ... it seems somewhat odd that we use the IF header to determine > what locks are to be refreshed. I would think this should work just as UNLOCK > does. That's not to say people can't use an IF header, but that's not how > they specify which of the locks is to be refreshed. The IF header would only > be for consistancy checking if the client wanted the refresh to be contingent > on the presence of a specified lock on some specified resource. I agree with Jason (and others) that this would be the preferable way for a lock refresh to work. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 11:51:36 UTC