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

RE: Binding loops and PROPFIND clarification needed (was Re: COPY and bindings)

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 09:53:33 -0700
To: "'Geoffrey M Clemm'" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007701c35aa8$f2084660$f8cb90c6@lisalap>
Let's not encourage servers behave differently unless that's really
necessary.  Clients that *do* support bindings, in particular, should be
able to count on servers handling this case in predictable ways.
 
lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Geoffrey M Clemm
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:40 AM
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: RE: Binding loops and PROPFIND clarification needed (was Re: COPY
and bindings)



"Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 08/04/2003 08:52:26 AM: 

> ... old clients that treat 208 as success will incorrectly assume 
> that a collection was empty, while old clients that treat 208 as 
> error will fail to display additional bindings to a resource. 
> 
> I think that there is no easy way to marshall this information in a 
> way compatible with old clients. We've spent a lot of time 
> discussing this, but still don't have a solution. Therefore my 
> alternate proposal just to forbid this very special case. 

My counter proposal is that servers who are concerned about this can 
return 506 on the request as a whole, while servers that are not 
concerned about old client behavior in this regard can take advantage 
of 208. 

Cheers, 
Geoff 
Received on Monday, 4 August 2003 12:52:56 GMT

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