W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > July to September 2002

Marshalling Depth > 0 responses for REPORTs, WAS: Replacing the Label header with a DAV:labeled-version report

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 10:21:51 +0200
To: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEIHFAAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>


I think we really need to come to a conclusion here.

IMHO, marshalling something that isn't a resource property inside a
multistatus/response/propstat/prop element clearly breaks RFC2518 [1] and is
very confusing. If this behaviour really was intended by RFC3253 then it was
extremely hard to discover because there's not a single example in the spec
where this actually happens.

My proposal would be to put the report result below the response element,
and to assign it a new name, such as:


Related question of the day: what's the response format for the version-tree
report with depth: 1 applied to a collection that itself is not versioned
but contains one version controlled member?

For depth 0 I'd expect:



<error xmlns="DAV:"><supported-report/></error>

So for depth 1 one would get:


<multistatus xmlns="DAV:">

    <status>HTTP/1.1 409 Conflict</status>


      ...now what?...
      <status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</status>


RFC3253 seems to indicate that the <prop> element for the version controlled
member must return the requested report. The format for the version-tree
report defines a multistatus response body. So would the <prop> element
contain another <multistatus> sub-tree?

Question to other implementors: who has implemented all of RFC3253's REPORTs
for depths != 0 (where allowed) and feels that the format is well
understood? I certainly don't feel so.


[1] <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#ELEMENT_prop>
Received on Saturday, 27 July 2002 04:22:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:48 UTC