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

RE: Proposal for marshalling property type information

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:05:12 +0100
To: "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <80256A6C.00425118.00@d06mta06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>


"Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> 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...

The RFC2518 defined properties are:
creationdate
displayname
getcontentlanguage
getcontentlength
getcontenttype
getetag
getlastmodified
lockdiscovery
resourcetype
source
supportedlock

So the only ones that I believe would return type info (using the xs:string
- exclusion rule) are
creationdate -> dateTime
getContentLength -> nonNegativeInteger
getLastModified -> dateTime

So although I don't think it would be a great overhead for servers to
return these each time, I don't really care either way.

> > 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).

What is the issue? I don't think that there is any great harm to interop if
some servers respond with 200OK and others return 207MultiStatus with 200OK
for each response.

> Do you think it would be a problem to require the 207 <multistatus>
> response in this case?

You may get pushback from some server writers.

Tim
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 08:06:56 GMT

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