Am Montag den, 22. April 2002, um 02:40, schrieb Clemm, Geoff: > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > [...] > - MAY contain response elements for targets that caused the failure. > > That would be OK with me but I'd prefer to nest the information > about targets that caused the failure in the response element for the > source resource that wasn't moved/copied/deleted. This is a change > from RFC 2518, but I think it is warranted. > > It might be woth thinking to also add some kind of linkage > between the > two > response elements. > > I agree. That is the purpose for nesting the information about the > targets that caused the failure in the response for the target that > was not copied. So, as usual I propose a format which will make everyone scream and come up with a much better one. ... <D:response> <D:href>/bla/...</D:href> <D:status>HTTP/1.1 409 CONFLICT</D:status> <D:cause> <D:href>/other/...</D:href> <D:status>HTTP/1.1 423 LOCKED</D:status> </D:cause> </D:response> //StefanReceived on Monday, 22 April 2002 04:06:25 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:00 GMT