W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1999

RE: [Moderator Action] Questions on Webdav Servers

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:46:54 -0700
To: ccjason@us.ibm.com, WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

> >>
> Fow now, I recommend using 423 (Locked), although we need to add a new
> status code, 4xx (Parent Locked).  Though the language is a big unclear,
> this is the intent of the discussion in the second paragraph of 
> section 7.5
> of RFC 2518 (which states that 423 Locked should be used).
> >>
> Ummm.  Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't think dedicating an error
> code to parent lock is a great idea.  Note... a URI can also be
> "protected" if any child or decendent is locked and I'd guess that
> we're not going to have a return code for each of these.  I suspect
> that if we're going to specify what was locked, we'll need to come
> up with a generic way of specifying what lock(s) is/are causing
> the problem.... just stick with a single LOCKED error code.

I agree - that's a much better idea.

- Jim
Received on Monday, 26 July 1999 23:53:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:17 UTC