- From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:58:54 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>, WEBDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Roy, Thank you for pointing out these clarifications and errors in the WebDAV status codes. The changes you suggest will be found in the -09 version of the Distributed Authoring Protocol specification. - Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Roy T. Fielding > Sent: Monday, October 12, 1998 3:42 PM > To: WEBDAV WG > Subject: WebDAV response status codes > > > While I was adding the WebDAV status code to the Apache source base, > I noticed a couple things that don't fit the HTTP design. > > General: In several places, the protocol describes responses in terms > of the response phrase, as in "The Method Failure status code", instead > of the actual status code. In the HTTP specifications, the reason phrase > is never used in a normative context, and is instead included in > parentheses > after the status code number. This is because the phrase is only > a comment > and not part of the protocol. > > Section 9: (editorial) > Each of the status codes are described as if they were being inserted > in the main HTTP/1.1 specification, which is very terse. WebDAV does > not need to be this terse, and should at a minimum introduce the status > code in the body text before each definition. > > 9.5 424 Method Failure > > The method was not executed on a particular resource within its > scope because some part of the method's execution failed causing the > entire method to be aborted. For example, if a command in a > PROPPATCH method fails then, at minimum, the rest of the commands > will also fail with 424 Method Failure. > > There are three problems here: > > 1) 424 is never used by WebDAV as a status code. > 2) The above has the semantics of a 5xx response, even though the > dependency was part of the client request. > 3) The reason phrase does not help the reader understand the code. > > My suggestion is that either 424 be replaced by a non-HTTP construct in > the XML of a 207 response, or that you define the status code so that > it has some meaning significant to HTTP. For example > > 424 Failed Dependency > > The 424 (Failed Dependency) status code means that the method could > not be performed on the resource because the requested action depended > on another action and that other action failed. For example, if a > command in a PROPPATCH method fails then, at minimum, the rest of > the commands will also fail with a 424 response. > > > 9.6 425 Insufficient Space on Resource > > The resource does not have sufficient space to record the state of > the resource after the execution of this method. > > 4xx responses are reserved for errors by the client. This is not an > error by the client. Also, a 'resource' in HTTP does not have space. > If you want these semantics as a status code, then the correct definition > would be something like > > 507 Insufficient Storage > > The 507 (Insufficient Storage) status code means that the method could > not be performed on the resource because the server is unable to store > the representation needed to successfully complete the request. This > condition is considered to be temporary. The request MUST NOT be > repeated until it is requested by a separate user action. > > I'd like these to be fixed before draft 09. > > ....Roy >
Received on Friday, 16 October 1998 21:03:37 UTC