W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: Preconditions and the responsedescription element

From: Werner Donné <werner.donne@re.be>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:43:50 +0200
Message-ID: <44DB5436.6010509@re.be>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

Adding the error element to the response element is indeed
nicer, but it would have been safer to add it after all
"old" elements in the content model, as it was done for the
location element. Current clients which don't ignore unknown
elements that intervene in an existing content model different
from "ANY", will break. It is likely that such clients simply
consume the elements they know in the known order and then stop.



Julian Reschke wrote:
> Werner Donné schrieb:
>> Hi,
>> Section 1.6 of RFC 3253 states that in case of a multi-status
>> response, the error element, in which the precondition elements
>> are placed, appears in the responsedescription element. The
>> content model of the latter, however, is (#PCDATA).
> Yes, and there's really no problem with that, because RFC2518 also says
> that elements can be extended.
> Now, when discussing RFC2518bis a few WG members claimed that extending
> elements with PCDATA model with new child elements is not a good idea,
> and thus RFC2518bis has changed the embedding of <error> elements. This
> may be less intrusive, but it *is* an incompatible change to RFC3253,
> thus, feedback appreciated (see, for instance,
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-15.html#rfc.section.14.24>).
> Best regards, Julian

Werner Donné  --  Re
Engelbeekstraat 8
B-3300 Tienen
tel: (+32) 486 425803	e-mail: werner.donne@re.be
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2006 15:43:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:49 UTC