- From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:33:04 +0000
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
>> Secondly, I agree that there are a number of >> places where the marshaling is underspecified >> with respect to (usually) error conditions >> (though in this case it is a 200 OK response). >> For example, in REPORT "the response body MUST >> contain the requested report" and "The >> DAV:version-tree REPORT response body MUST be >> a DAV:multistatus XML element." > > I didn't quite follow your point here Tim ... could you restate > or clarify? Simply that when, say DAV:version-tree REPORT is in error, it returns an extended status element body (contrary to "The DAV:version-tree REPORT response body MUST be a DAV:multistatus XML element.") Tim
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 06:33:47 UTC