Next message: Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM: "Re: Naive question"
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B179A120@SUS-MA1IT01>
From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:49:08 -0400
Subject: RE: 4xx response body values
It's probably a bit premature to worry about it being a long
discussion before there even has been a single message in
the discussion (:-).
I currently count 45 distinct 4xx error codes in the versioning
proposal. Using up over half of the remaining 4xx numeric code space
for versioning seems more likely to raise vehement objections,
than proposing a set of XML elements to appear in the response body.
So I'd like to hear at least one significant flaw in the proposal
before we adopt a known-to-be-flawed alternative. Objections to
using distinct 4xx codes include:
- non-scalable (versioning alone wants 45 of the codes)
- not compatible with existing clients (which could make use
of the current generic 4xx codes).
Cheers,
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com [mailto:Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 7:19 AM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: 4xx response body values
- JA: the new 4xx response body values
<jra>
This looks like a LOOOOONG disucssion that I hate to see introduced in
versioning. If this is a general WebDAV problem, the WebDAV spec and
working group should address it. There are too many potential consequences
of this design to include it at this late date. Let's run our of 4xx status
codes first.
</jra>
I agree with Jim, this will distract from the versioning protocol -- we
should just use response codes.
Tim