Subject: RE: [w3c-dist-auth] <none>

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:20:06 -0400

In normal practice, you should not be "stealing" lock tokens, even if the
lock token was taken out by another process owned by "you".  You should
leave the resource alone until the process that took out the lock has
released the lock.  In an exceptional case, where the process that took out
the lock has died before releasing the lock (and lock timeouts are not
automatically releasing the lock), you can attempt to "steal" the lock
tokens, but this should be an exceptional case, done only after explicit
confirmation by the user ("yes, I want to override these locks").

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajiv A V [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:03 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [w3c-dist-auth] <none>

Hi, 
  I have a very trival issue in the use of lock tokens. reading about the
use of lock tokens from the RFC it seems that a process (user)should be
aware of the resources he is deleting. But let us assume that my client
fetches lock tokens (performs lock discovery) on a need basis. Now assume
that I want to delete a folder resource inside which I have some stuff that
I have locked myself. I have 2 ways to implement it

a) dont delete the resouce since the user hasnt seen the resource yet and
wait for the user to see all the resources that he has locked (effectively
meaning that then he has a lock token for all the needed resources because
thats when the lock discovery is done)
b) when i recieve that detail from the server that tells me that some
resouce is locked, just inform the user that there are locks inside
the folder. then on user confirmation the client would interally fetch all
the lock tokens for resources that are locked inside the folder and goes
ahead with the delete. this would be transparent to the user but the user
knows that he is deleting resources that he has a lock on.

I know this is a implementation issue but please let me know which is the
right way to do it and would be more webdav compliant.

 thanks and regards,
     rajiv

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:20:03 +0200

Hi,

another bug report regarding Microsoft's webfolder client (posted here so
that it's archived in the mailing list archives):

When creating files on a WebDAV server, the clients submits a
"Content-Language" header with the PUT request (on my machine: always
"en-us"), even though the content language isn't known (and obviously may be
different). This can trick a WebDAV server to persist this information (and
to return it as DAV:getcontentlanguage property).

Is anybody aware of a fix or workaround for this problem (other than
ignoring the content language header for specific user agents)?

Julian

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:58:25 -0700

Have you investigated whether Web Folders submits a Content-Language header
with a different value if the user's system language is not "en-us"?  It may
be that the user's system language is the closed Web Folders can get to
knowing the language of the file.

If that is the case, then I would think it would be wrong of the WebDAV
server to ignore the value.

Lisa

> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 10:20 AM
> Subject: Bug in MS webfolder client: Content-Language header when
> PUTting
>
>
>
> Hi,
>

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:19:34 +0200

> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 12:58 AM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'
> Cc: Webdav WG (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Bug in MS webfolder client: Content-Language header when
> PUTting
>
>
>

May system's language indeed is not "en-us", but that's what the client is
submitting.

> server to ignore the value.

It would still be the wrong value. A system default is not good enough. If a
client doesn't know the content language, it MUST not submit it.

---

From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:38:19 -0700

I agree, system language should not be assumed for content.

My system language is en-us, my date-time preference is ISO
("yyyy-mm-dd-hh:mm -0700" 24-hour local time), my Internet language
preferences are (1) Italian and then (2) English (American).  My settings
for menus and windows are Italian.  At the moment I have content on my
machine in English (mostly American, both transatlantic flavors), Italian,
Spanish, German and Japanese.  I have some files in Russian and a variety of
central European languages -- intermixed.  This is happening more and more.

The system language setting is not a reliable indicator of content language.
I think it is better to say nothing than to assume something based on the
coincidence of a default that actually has little technical relationship to
content.

I think the architectural principle that applies here is one of not solving
problems that are not ones we created.  Compensating for a problem that
arises elsewhere (a practice that has led to no end of troubles with mail
servers) at a point where there is inadequate information is, in my
experience, an open invitation to system disintegration.

-- Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 23:20
To: Lisa Dusseault; 'Julian Reschke'
Cc: Webdav WG (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Bug in MS webfolder client: Content-Language header when
PUTting