error reporting, was: Comments on search-00 draft

> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 7:42 PM
> To: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: Comments on search-00 draft
>
> ..
>
> e) Section 2.6.1 - more odd use of error responses
>
> This section specifies the use of 400 Bad Request as the error response to
> use when there is a scope problem.  I would have suggested instead 405
> Method Not Allowed if the Request-URI exists but can't handle the SEARCH
> request.  400 Bad Request can be used in so many places it's not very
> specific.
>
> Or, since your example suggests that the resources is "not found" instead,
> then the server should respond with 404 Not Found as the major response
> code.  Then it seems the body would not be required.

That wouldn't allow you to distinguish between "search arbiter not found"
and "scope not found"...

> In summary, this section seems to be unnecessarily reinventing error
> response mechanisms.

Right.

I'd propose to completely rewrite the error handling, making it
RFC3253-compatible.

> ..