W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: response body (was: Re: Comments on VERSION-CONTROL)

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:14:10 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200102051514.KAA20864@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
   From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com
   Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:33:04 +0000



   >>   Secondly, I agree that there are a number of
   >>   places where the marshaling is underspecified
   >>   with respect to (usually) error conditions
   >>   (though in this case it is a 200 OK response).
   >>   For example, in REPORT "the response body MUST
   >>   contain the requested report" and "The
   >>   DAV:version-tree REPORT response body MUST be
   >>   a DAV:multistatus XML element."
   >
   > I didn't quite follow your point here Tim ... could you restate
   > or clarify?

   Simply that when, say DAV:version-tree REPORT is in error, it returns an
   extended status element body (contrary to "The DAV:version-tree REPORT
   response body MUST be a DAV:multistatus XML element.")

OK, I think I get it.  These statements should be qualified by "if the
request succeeds".  Will this address your concern?

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 10:15:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:40 GMT