W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1998

RE: v6: 102 Processing and Status-URI

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:23:08 -0800
Message-ID: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D0113C6FB@red-msg-59.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'ejw@ics.uci.edu'" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "'Jim Davis'" <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
1) Not every method can return a 102 because it may not necessarily be
meaningful.

2) Anyone who does not understand that 1xx codes are intermediary codes does
not understand HTTP and thus is not qualified to read the DAV spec. DAV is
not a primer for HTTP. It assumes the reader is already conversant in all
relevant details of HTTP.

	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jim Whitehead [SMTP:ejw@ics.uci.edu]
> Sent:	Monday, January 26, 1998 12:50 PM
> To:	Yaron Goland; 'Jim Davis'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	RE: v6: 102 Processing and Status-URI
> 
> By my reading, Section 10.1 of RFC 2068 doesn't really address Jim's 
> questions in any substantive way.  I think the DAV spec. would be improved
> 
> by noting that any method can return a 102, and that the server must 
> eventually return a non-1xx status code response which will typically, but
> 
> not necessarily be a 207 Multi-Status.
> 
> - Jim
> 
> On Saturday, January 24, 1998 3:18 PM, Yaron Goland 
> [SMTP:yarong@microsoft.com] wrote:
> > Please refer to section 10.1 of RFC 2068 for a full explanation of what 
> 1xx
> > series response codes are and how they work. It fully and completely 
> answers
> > your question.
> > 	Yaron
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:	Jim Davis [SMTP:jdavis@parc.xerox.com]
> > > Sent:	Saturday, January 24, 1998 2:05 PM
> > > To:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > > Subject:	v6: 102 Processing and Status-URI
> > >
> > > Do we still need 102 Processing?   Can *any* method return 102?  or 
> only
> > > some?  If only some, then those that can return it should list it the 
> list
> > > of possible status codes.  If all can, then there should be some 
> language
> > > that says that the list of status codes with each DAV method is not
> > > exhaustive.
> > >
> > > The explanation isn't sufficient to understand how 102 works.  An 
> example
> > > would help.  I mean, I can guess, and I might guess right, but I might
> > > guess wrong, too.
> > >
> > > If I do e.g., a MOVE, and get back 102 Processing, will I eventually 
> get a
> > > MultiStatus?  Will I get a stream of 102s every 20 seconds or so,
> until 
> I
> > > get that 207?
> > 
Received on Monday, 26 January 1998 17:23:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:44 GMT