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

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

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 10:53:54 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B107A5CC47@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

   From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@rational.com]


      From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]

      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?

      So for depth 1 one would get:
      207 MULTISTATUS
      <multistatus xmlns="DAV:">
	<response>
	  <href>/collection/</href>
	  <status>HTTP/1.1 409 Conflict</status>
	  <responsedescription><error><supported-report/>
	    </error></responsedescription> </response>
	<response>
	  <href>/collection/a</href>
	  <propstat>
	    <prop>
	    ...now what?...
	    </prop>
	    <status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</status>
	  </propstat>
	</response>
      </multistatus>

      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?

   Yes.

BTW, I'm not happy with that answer, but it is what RFC3253 says.
In retrospect, I wish we had given every REPORT response its own
xml element such as is done with the DAV:merge-preview-report
(possibly nesting the multistatus within that).

For any new reports we define, we definitely should do so.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Sunday, 28 July 2002 10:54:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:43 GMT