W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2003

RE: More issue resolution: OVERLAP_5.3_AND_8.7.2, XML_LANG_CLARIFY, COPY_LIVE_PROPS

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:53:37 +0200
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGEEBHKAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 7:55 PM
> To: Jason Crawford; 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: More issue resolution: OVERLAP_5.3_AND_8.7.2, XML_LANG_CLARIFY,
> OVERLAP_5.3_AND_8.7.2: This issue is redundant with issue 
> REMOVE_SECTION_5.3.  Section 5.3 is removed so this issue must 
> also be closed.


> XML_LANG_CLARIFY: This issue can be marked as "inBis" if not 
> CLOSED.  I believe the current language arouses no further objections:
> "XML's support for multiple human languages, using the “xml:lang” 
> attribute, handles cases where the same character set is employed 
> by multiple human languages. Note that xml:lang scope is 
> recursive, so a xml:lang attribute on any element containing a 
> property name element applies to the property value unless it has 
> been overridden by a more locally scoped attribute."


> COPY_LIVE_PROPS:  This issue can be marked as "inBis" if not 
> CLOSED.  A "COPY/MOVE behaviour" section was added to each 
> property definition in 03 and changes made to section 8.10, and 
> there have been no objections to this.

Agreed (should be closed when the next draft is available).

> 302_AND_MULTISTATUS: This issue can be marked as "inBis" if not 
> CLOSED.  Section 12 of draft -03 contains an explanation of how 
> the Location header may appear on a Multistatus response and how 
> the client must handle that.

This currently says:

"When the 302 and 303 status codes are returned as the only status code for a response, HTTP1.1 uses the Location response header to indicate where the client should make the request.  The Multi-Status response syntax does not allow for the Location header information to be included in an unambiguous way, so servers MAY choose not to use these status codes in Multi-Status responses. If a clients receives this status code in Multi-Status, the client MAY reissue the request to the individual resource, so that the server can issue a response with a Location header for each resource."

What's the rationale for allowing servers not to return 3xx response status in multistatus? And what should they return *instead*? I think this needs more discussion...


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 
Received on Sunday, 22 June 2003 14:54:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:27 UTC