W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: [RFC2518 Issue] PROPFIND 'allprop' usage

From: Terry Crowley <tcrowley@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:22:07 -0800
Message-ID: <1E27BBCDDE50914C99517B4D7EC5D5251EBC00@RED-MSG-13.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "'Greg Stein'" <gstein@lyra.org>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I'd have to agree on the point that a 507 response isn't particularly
useful.  Just what is a client supposed to do with that?  How are they
supposed to recover?  What kind of feedback do they provide to the user that
they just got back a partial result set (and as Greg points out, it would be
very difficult to know how it was truncated).  Many clients would want to
just treat that as a complete failure and try a different approach, but in
the meantime they might have had to download and parse a very large (but not
large enough) response that they end up discarding.

Terry Crowley

>> Returning 507 would be a bit more difficult implementation-wise. However,
>> think we really shouldn't allow that mechanism. What is a client to do
>> it gets a 507? How does it know *what* was left out, and *how* to get
>> results? Did the server do a depth-first or a breadth-first response of
>> properties? Which collections did it recurse into and which did it not?
>> it stop *partway* through a collection? How can a client tell?
>> -- 
>> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sunday, 26 November 2000 22:22:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:22 UTC