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: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:55:47 -0700
To: "Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HPELJFCBPHIPBEJDHKGKAEPNCIAA.lisa@xythos.com>
OK, I buy this reasoning.  Thanks.

Lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Amsden
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 10:32 AM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Postconditions with no XML elements defined?
>
>
> Lisa:
>    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.
>
> Geoff:
> I'd fall into the "strong objection" camp.  403 means the user should
> not retry the operation, because it will never succeed.  This will
> sometimes be the case for both precondition and postcondition
> failures.  409 means that there is something the user could do to the
> resource to make the operation succeed.  This will also sometimes be
> the case for both precondition and postcondition failures.
>
> Jim:
> I agree with Geoff. It would be nice to have a consistent, simple rule
> distinguishing 403 and 409 that could be applied in all
> circumstances, but
> this would not account for useful variability across, or perhaps even
> within servers. Interoperability won't suffer because the marshalling is
> the same, both are client error condidtions, and the semantics of the
> distinction between them is well specified by HTTP in a way that clients
> can make use of.
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 13:56:09 GMT

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