W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: succeed code for DELETE

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:16:56 +0200
Message-ID: <414832B8.8010406@gmx.de>
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
CC: webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, "'ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org'" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>

Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> 
> Good catch, Girish!
> 
> RFC-2518bis team: Please add this to the list of editorial issues
> for 2518.
> 
> These two sentences in 8.6 (in 8.7 of 2518bis) should be deleted.
> The first sentence is wrong, because 204 is not an error, and so
> there is no such thing as a "204 (No Content) error".
> The second sentence is wrong, because 204 (No Content) is not
> the "default success code".
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff

+1

> Girish wrote on 09/15/2004 02:58:50 AM:
>  > At the end of section 8.6 (DELETE), there is a statement which
>  > states that 204 should not be included in a 207.
>  > "Additionally 204 (No Content) errors SHOULD NOT be returned in
>  > the 207 (Multi-Status).The reason for this prohibition is that
>  > 204 (No Content) is the default success code."
>  > It was this particular phrase which confused me.
> 
>  >    Girish wrote on 09/14/2004 10:42:32 AM:
>  >    > Can a successful DELETE (in my case, deletion of a version-history)
>  >    > return some content (some href, for example) to the client?
>  >    > RFC 2158 states that 204 (no content) is the default success code
>  >    > for DELETE.  I was wondering if there are special deltaV semantics.

Yet, why would you *want* to send a response body upon DELETE?

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2004 12:17:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:06 GMT