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

Issues: MKCOL_AND_302, IMPLIED_LWS, PUT_AND_INTERMEDIATE_COLLECTIONS, INTEROP_DELETE_AND_MULTISTATUS

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:35:18 -0700
To: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <007001c338f5$6bc6cec0$fdcb90c6@lisalap>



MKCOL_AND_302: This issue can be marked "inBis" if not CLOSED.  Draft -03 says that MKCOL can return 302 and there have been no objections so far.

IMPLIED_LWS: This issue can be marked "inBis" if not CLOSED.  Draft -03 says that the HTTP rules are imported "including the rules about implied linear white-space."

PUT_AND_INTERMEDIATE_COLLECTIONS: This issue can be marked "inBis" if not CLOSED.  Draft -03 says "The server MUST NOT create those intermediate collections automatically.”

INTEROP_DELETE_AND_MULTISTATUS: This is the old issue respecting how HTTP clients might be confused by a 207 response to a DELETE message, believing it to be a success message  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1999AprJun/0062.html>.  Have we got consensus to continue using 207, on the basis that by now it would break far more WebDAV clients to *stop* using 207?

- Julian says continue using 207 but has also proposed switching to a 4XX
  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0049.html>
  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0065.html>
- Roy argues it violates RFC2616  
  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0046.html> 
- My vote is to continue using 207
  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0044.html>
- The interim meeting attendees in Jan 2003 were unanimous in continuing with 207
  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0044.html>
- John DeSoi points out that Netscape uses DELETE and 2XX should not be redefined
  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0057.html>
- Bob Denny says let's not violate RFC2616
  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0048.html>
- Geoff Clemm might want to clarify his position
  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0065.html>

I don't think we have consensus yet overall.  Please discuss, clarify, or even simply restate your position.

Lisa
Received on Sunday, 22 June 2003 15:35:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:04 GMT