W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: Some questions about WebDAV

From: ChunWei Ho <fuzzybr80@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:16:48 +0800
Message-ID: <31f07fc305072008165be47e70@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Hi,

I have another question. When the If header (webDAV's If header)
condition is not met, the request should fail with 412 Precondition
Failed. If the request is one over multiple resource, like PROPFIND,
COPY or MOVE over Depth > 0, should the whole request fail returning
412 Precondition Failed, or fail only for the specific resources
returning 207 MultiStatus with some portions giving a 412 Precondition
Failed.

Thanks again for the help! :)

Regards,
CW

On 7/19/05, ChunWei Ho <fuzzybr80@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for your prompt reply.
> 
> 
> > > (b) The PROPFIND <response>s contain <prop>s grouped by their status.
> > > This sort of grouping is not compulsory? example,
> > I wouldn't say grouping is required (although it's nice because it
> > reduces the size). Clients shouldn't rely on it though (I've seen at
> > least one server not grouping the properties).
> >
> > Do you think this is something the next spec revision should clarify?
> 
> Non-compulsory grouping was what I gathered from the current XML DTD
> spec itself, but I just wanted to doubly make sure. :)
> 
> >
> > > (c) The HTTP conditional Ifs (If-Modified-Since, If-Match, etc) are
> > > not applied to the webDAV introduced methods? Even if Depth header is
> > > '0'?
> >
> > That's indeed a very good question. I would assume that currently most
> > servers do not do this for PROPFIND/COPY and so on, but I think RFC2616
> > requires this.
> >
> > We should collect implementation data (meaning: write test cases) first,
> > and then let's discuss what we do about it...
> 
> The question occurs because I am developing a webdav server (to join
> the legions already out there) by extending an existing HTTP server in
> an educational project. The DELETE method currently supports
> If-conditionals, but the conditionals lose meaning when applied to
> items with depth > 0 (introduced in webdav). Should I continue to
> support If-conditionals for DELETE/MOVE/COPY at depth = 0?
> 
> From the view of the webdav spec itself, the If-conditionals on
> mutation methods like DELETE/MOVE/COPY were meant to prevent a user
> from overwriting something that has changed, but the write locking
> scheme present in webdav already addresses that to some extent i
> guess.
> 
> Regards,
> CW
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2005 15:17:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:09 GMT