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

RE: Postconditions with no XML elements defined?

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:34:00 -0700
To: "Tim Ellison" <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HPELJFCBPHIPBEJDHKGKMENFCIAA.lisa@xythos.com>
> I did that a while ago, and it was not such a big deal
> (
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2000OctDec/0125.html
)
> however, there was a large grain of salt used when deciding between 403
and
> 409.  If there is interest in re-doing that list I'll happily do so, but
> wherever there is a disagreement about if it should be one or the other I
> will not offer any resistance :-)

Please make it simple and normative!

> The preconditions are statements that must be true for a method to
succeed,

Sounds like if the precondition is not true the operation is "Forbidden",

> and the postconditions are statements that must be true immediately after
the method has suceeded.

Sounds like there must be a "Conflict" if the postcondition cannot be met.

If there are no strong objections, I propose that we adopt the simple
normative rule a precondition is returned with 403 and a postcondition is
returned with 409.

Lisa
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 12:35:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:42 GMT