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: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:08:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4357EB35.5070601@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 
> Well, I suppose there are multiple ways of answering the question.    
> Since the question explicitly asked whether the server should fail  
> "returning 207 Multi-Status with some portions giving a 412  
> Precondition Failed", I still find that saying that 412 can't appear in  
> Multi-Status is at least a partial answer to that question.

...but:

1) A statement about 412 in multistatus is very different from adding a 
whole new section saying lots of other things, and

2) from a procedural p.o.v.: somebody asked a question, and there was a 
single answer, and no further discussion. To me, cases like this one are 
a perfect example for no changes of the spec being required. We 
shouldn't change the spec each and every time somebody has a question 
unless there's a consensus that there's actually something wrong with 
the spec. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

> Another answer would be to say that unmet preconditions MUST cause the  
> entire request to fail atomically even if the request involves multiple  
> resources.  Do you think we should add that to the draft?

After re-reading the thread I actually think that RFC2518 currently 
defines a behaviour for "Depth" that is unlikely to be implemented. So 
what we need to do is to sit down, write test cases and find out what 
current implementations do. *Then*, wen can discuss potential changes. 
But please let's first find out what currently servers do.

Volunteers?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2005 19:09:19 GMT

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