- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:53:39 -0500 (EST)
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com > >> 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." > > > 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.") > > OK, I think I get it. These statements should be qualified > by "if the request succeeds". Will this address your concern? I really wasn't that concerned<g>, I was acknowledging Juergen/James' comments -- but yes, that would fix it. Ok, I'll make that fix. It's really bad to have false statements in the protocol, even if there is a reasonable interpretation very confusing to another. I'll make this change to every marshalling section. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 12:54:39 UTC