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

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

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:27:44 +0000
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <802569EA.0054F0B9.00@d06mta07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>


>    >>   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?

I really wasn't that concerned<g>, I was acknowledging Juergen/James'
comments -- but yes, that would fix it.

Tim
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 10:29:01 GMT

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