Re: draft 16 vs issue bz238

Lisa Dusseault schrieb:
> 
> 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').

So then why does Section 13 say 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-16.html#rfc.section.13>):

---
A Multi-Status response uses one out of two distinct formats for 
representing the status:

    1. A 'status' element as child of the 'response' element indicates 
the status of the message excecution for the identified resource as a 
whole (for instance, see Section 9.6.2). Some method definitions provide 
information about specific status codes clients should be prepared to 
see in a response. However, clients MUST be able to handle other status 
codes, using the generic rules defined in Section 10 of [RFC2616].
    2. For PROPFIND and PROPPATCH, the format has been extended using 
the 'propstat' element instead of 'status', providing information about 
individual properties of a resource. This format is specific to PROPFIND 
and PROPPATCH, and is described in detail in Section 9.1 and Section 9.2.
---

??

Best regards, Julian