W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > October to December 1998

RE: DASL Response Codes

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:11:24 -0800
Message-ID: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D087929D9@RED-MSG-59>
To: "'Slein, Judith A'" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
2.4 I would have to look at this in detail to deliver an opinion,
unfortunately I am heads down on IE 5.0 and don't have time for a review.

2.5 Multistatus was always intended to be used outside of 207. I think we
even put in an explicit sentence in the spec pointing this out.

5.4.2 Again, I would have to look at this directly to give you an answer.

		Yaron (from 50,000 ft under water)

-----Original Message-----
From: Slein, Judith A [mailto:JSlein@crt.xerox.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 1998 2:05 PM
To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
Subject: DASL Response Codes

These are some truly minor issues with a great spec.

I'm far from being an expert on HTTP or WebDAV response codes, but I'm a
little concerned by what I see in the DASL 03 protocol spec.  I'd like to
suggest that you consult with Roy Fielding, Jim Whitehead, and Yaron Goland
if you haven't done so already.

Here are my issues:

2.4 207 (Multi-Status) doesn't imply success or failure in WebDAV.  There's
something not quite consistent between 2.4 and 2.5.  I would expect a
success response to get a 200 OK if an error response gets a 400 Bad
Request; or else in both cases to get a 207 Multi-Status with the "real"
status inside the DAV:multistatus in the response body.  But here the
successful case works one way, and the failure case works the other way.

2.5 In WebDAV a DAV:multistatus element occurs only in a 207 (Multi-Status)
response, but you are using it in other responses.  I see the appeal of
being able to find out the real source of the problem in the response line,
without having to read the response body.  I would just like to hear from
the WebDAV authors that this use of DAV:multistatus is consistent with their
intentions about how it would be used.

5.4.2 The response in this example is 400, but its meaning is given as
Multi-Status.  This really seems unacceptable -- to use a response code
defined in rfc 2068, but with a different meaning.  I'd definitely check
with Roy before doing this.


Judith A. Slein
Xerox Corporation
800 Phillips Road 105/50C
Webster, NY 14580
Received on Monday, 16 November 1998 17:11:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:41 UTC