- From: Tim Ellison OTT <Tim_Ellison@oti.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:05:36 -0400
- To: ccjason@us.ibm.com (ccjason), w3c-dist-auth@w3.org (w3c-dist-auth)
<jason> Also note... if we say there is no minimization... that means even if the PROPPATCH had to back out everything due to one error, the response will still need to list all those 200's along with the single error that occured. Does it sound fine to outlaw the elmination of those 200's? <jason/> <tim> If the server backs out changes then the 200's would become 424-Failed Dependency's wouldn't they? </tim> <jason> Also, we don't say if a proppatch request can set a property several times. I guess it's implicit that it can. That does make for somewhat more complex server response generating code... unless we're going to allow each properties to generate more than one response if altered multiple times. </jason> <tim> I guess it would. Imagine <set>foo <remove>foo <set>foo Since the order of the responses is not guaranteed (i.e. error minimization may rearrange the propstats) I may get <propstat>foo & foo = Failed Dependency <propstat>foo = Conflict So which of the update directives generated the conflict? </tim>
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 1999 11:08:41 UTC