W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: draft 16 vs issue bz238

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:16:44 -0800
Message-Id: <FBCC9F25-2ECA-40CD-BABD-3B47A3F38AF3@osafoundation.org>
Cc: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>


Yeah, the section reference is wrong, I can fix that.  I'll continue  
to use my own wording for the rest as it's not quite true that  
there's two different formats (I can think of three: empty body,  
'error' body or 'multistatus').

Lisa

On Nov 28, 2006, at 5:36 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> From <http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi? 
> id=238#c2>:
>
> Draft 16 added:
>
> "If a server attempts to make any of the property changes in a  
> PROPPATCH request (i.e. the request is not rejected for high-level  
> errors before processing the body), the response MUST be a Multi- 
> Status response (Section 13)."
>
> That's incorrect. The whole point is that in this case, the Multi- 
> Status reponse format is *not* the one defined in Section 13. So  
> please replace with the previously suggested text:
>
> "The response to a PROPPATCH request can be in two different  
> formats: should the server reject the request altogether (because  
> of missing access rights, failed conditional headers, malformed  
> request syntax, etc.), the status SHOULD be non-2xx HTTP status. On  
> the other hand, if the server did attempt the property  
> modification, the response status SHOULD be 207 Multistatus, using  
> the 'multistatus' response body format defined below (Section 9.2.1)."
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Friday, 1 December 2006 19:16:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:15 GMT