W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Proposal for marshalling property type information

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:34:57 +0200
To: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>, "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCAEEICHAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 5:18 PM
> To: WebDAV WG
> Subject: RE: Proposal for marshalling property type information
>
>
>
>
> "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The idea was to be specific here to avoid "polluting"
> > > > PROPFIND replies with unnecessary information (as seen,
> > > > for instance, in IIS).
> > >
> > > I understand, however what is pollution to one client is useful
> > > information to another.
> >
> > Example?
>
> Any client retrieving a property whose type is unknown to them would
> benefit. For example, if a RFC2518 (but not DeltaV) aware client retrieved
> a DeltaV property it seems unfair that the client was not told of its data
> type simply because "the property's data type is defined in [RFC2518] or a
> related specification."  It does not make clients forward compatible with
> those future specifications.

Understood. So would it possibly make sense to to change the wording to "he
property's data type is defined in [RFC2518]" (leaving other specifications
out)? I still think we don't need to return the types for RFC2518 defined
properties...

> (stuff deleted)
>
> > Good point. I always thought that a server MUST return <multistatus>
> > on success, but RFC2518 seems to be silent about that. Certainly all
> > examples show a 207.
>
> It was generally agreed on this list a while back that total
> success may be
> condensed to a simple 200 OK response.  Your suggestion would require a
> further modification to these servers.

I see. Maybe this should be put onto the issues list then (for resolution in
RFC2518).

Do you think it would be a problem to require the 207 <multistatus> response
in this case?
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 11:35:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:56 GMT