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: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:54:31 +0200
To: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>, "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMELLCHAA.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: Monday, June 18, 2001 11:07 AM
> To: WebDAV WG
> Subject: RE: Proposal for marshalling property type information
>
>
>
>
> "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Now I'm tempted to agree that these should be returned. A minor
> > issue is with DAV:getlastmodified, because it's format isn't
> > xs:dateTime, meaning that we have to define a datatype for it in
> > the spec. That's why I'd still prefer to leave them out.
>
> Whatever, the set of relevant properties is so small I don't
> think there is
> a problem either way.

OK, this allows me to avoid specifying a datatype for RFC dates in the spec.

> I agree that clarification is good.  As an aside, I wonder what a client
> would do if it received an unexpected 200 OK back from a
> PROPPATCH -- would
> a reasonable implementation really signal a failure?

Depends on what you call reasonable. I haven't written a client yet, but up
until your comment I would have been tempted to think I'll always get a
multistatus.

> > > > 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.
> >
> > Well, unless somebody suggests a better approach, I'll have to live with
> > that.
>
> Maybe you can get a few minutes in the London meeting to gauge feedback.
> The problem, of course, is that if people don't like it, they won't
> implement it.

Which meeting?
Received on Monday, 18 June 2001 17:37:24 GMT

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