Next message: Sankar Vidhagriswaran: "workspaces and configurations"
Message-ID: <65B141FB11CCD211825700A0C9D609BC01D4D782@chef.lex.rational.com>
From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:51:21 -0500
Subject: RE: MKRESOURCE response
Just to make things interesting (:-), it has been argued in
the bindings protocol discussions that it is a bad thing (TM)
to have functions that are likely to need to be handled by
multiple implementation modules (because this doesn't fit well
with the ways servers hand off functionality between modules).
If we accept this argument, we would replace MKRESOURCE with
MKWORKSPACE, MKACTIVITY, etc. In this case, the response code
is just "method not implemented" (whatever one that is).
Cheers,
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI [mailto:Tim_Ellison@oti.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 2:56 PM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: MKRESOURCE response
What would you expect a MKRESOURCE request to return if it includes a
resource type that the server does not support?
403 Forbidden seem the most likely candidate.
Tim