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 12:53:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200102051753.MAA21043@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

   From: Tim_Ellison@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."
   >    >
   >    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.

Ok, I'll make that fix.  It's really bad to have false statements
in the protocol, even if there is a reasonable interpretation
very confusing to another.  I'll make this change to every
marshalling section.

Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 12:54:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:46 UTC