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

Re: Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:15:36 +0200
Message-ID: <434CAA08.8080102@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: WebDav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 
> This thread from a couple months ago brought up something probably worth 
> clarifying in RFC2518bis.  In fact we could usefully constrain servers 
> generally in what status codes MAY or MUST NOT be used inside 
> Multi-Status.  I wrote up a strawman draft section for this so we could 
> discuss the specifics:
> 
>    The following status codes MUST NOT be used in Multi-Status
>    responses: 100 Continue, 101 Switching Protocols, 205 Reset Content,
>    206 Partial Content, 300 Multiple Choices?, 305 Use Proxy, 400 Bad
>    Request, 405 Method Not Allowed, 406 Not Acceptable, 407 Proxy
>    Authentication Required, 411 Length Required, 412 Precondition
>    Failed, 413 Request Entity Too Large, 414 Request-URI Too Long, 415
>    Unsupported Media Type, 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable, 417
>    Expectation Failed, 501 Not Implemented and 505 HTTP Version Not
>    Supported.
> 
>    The following status codes MAY be used in Multi-Status responses: 200
>    OK, 201 Created, 301 Moved Permanently, 302 Found, 303 See Other, 307
>    Temporary Redirect, 401 Unauthorized, 403 Forbidden, 404 Not Found
>    and 410 Gone.
> 
>    The following status codes MAY be used in Multi-Status responses,
>    although the meaning might be unclear based only on this
>    specification.  Thus, specifications extending WebDAV MAY make use of
>    these status codes in Multi-Status responses but regular WebDAV
>    clients would reasonably be expected to be confused by these: 202
>    Accepted, 203 Non-Authoritative Information, 204 No Content, 304 Not
>    Modified, 402 Payment Required, 409 Conflict, 408 Request Timeout,
>    500 Internal Server Error, 502 Bad Gateway, 503 Service Unavailable
>    and 504 Gateway Timeout.
> 
> Comments?

Yes.

1) What exactly is the issue this is supposed to solve?

2) How did you come up with these lists? How do they help a client that 
needs to handle unknown status codes anyway (based on the first digit)? 
For instance, why can 300 not appear in a multistatus?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 06:15:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:10 GMT