- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:44:06 -0400
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Yes, defining the name for the response body for all the methods would be a good thing, to allow for this kind of extensibility. Does anyone object? My convention has been to have the request body for request XXX be DAV:xxx, and the response body be DAV:xxx-response. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Julian F. Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de] Well, I myself don't have the choice to defer it. I'm looking for the best way to integrate it into our deltaV implementation... Maybe we could at least consider to define the root element of an optional response body for CHECKOUT (because that would IMHO be the best way to return additional information to the client)? Regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 13:34:58 UTC