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

RE: Issues PUT_AND_INTERMEDIATE_COLLECTIONS and INTEROP_DELETE_A ND_MULTISTATUS

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:21:09 +0100
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEDBGFAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Roy T. Fielding
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 10:51 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> Subject: Re: Issues PUT_AND_INTERMEDIATE_COLLECTIONS and
> INTEROP_DELETE_A ND_MULTISTATUS
> 
> 
> 
> > Assuming WebDAV would want to define a new 4xx status code -- how do I 
> > find
> > out about which codes have been "taken"? Roy?
> 
> I don't know what the status of the registry is now, but it was supposed
> to be IANA.  The holdback was the lack of a registration process 
> [meaning
> the lack of a volunteer with enough free time to write that boring 
> task].
> Larry might know the current state.
> 
> Why don't you just respond with the status code of the first error,
> since otherwise you will need a 5xx as well.
> 
> 207 is completely lame (and yes I did make a stink of it at the time).
> HTTP doesn't specify the contents of the message body -- a 
> multi-response
> could have just as easily been done as 200/201 with a special media type
> specific to webdav.  The client already knows it is performing a webdav
> action and intermediaries know it isn't cacheable (because of the 
> method),
> so a parallel set of status codes isn't necessary.
> 
> ....Roy
> 
Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 07:21:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT