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

RE: PROPPATCH response with 201?

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 11:54:50 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B1042AB360@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Normally (according to 2616), a 201 indicates that a new resource has been
created on the server.  Unless you consider a property to itself be a
resource,
it would then be misleading to return a 201 for the addition of a property.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 6:29 PM
To: Webdav WG
Subject: PROPPATCH response with 201?



Greg & I find 2518 a little confusing on this issue:

"Status Codes for use with 207 (Multi-Status)

The following are examples of response codes one would expect to be used in
a 207 (Multi-Status) response for this method. Note, however, that unless
explicitly prohibited any 2/3/4/5xx series response code may be used in a
207 (Multi-Status) response.

200 (OK) - The command succeeded. As there can be a mixture of sets and
removes in a body, a 201 (Created) seems inappropriate. "

Why is 201 inappropriate inside a 207?  Wouldn't it be potentially useful to
a client to know when a property was created vs. modified?  If there's some
reason why 201 is inappropriate inside a 207 (which I can't see), then all
properties mods will be reported with a 200 OK.  Why not just use 200 OK for
the overall message response, omitting the body?  (remember PROPPATCH is
atomic)

If this just needs a mite of clarification, perhaps we can put it on the
issues list for 2518.

Lisa
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 11:44:00 GMT

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