- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:34:57 +0200
- To: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>, "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 5:18 PM > To: WebDAV WG > Subject: RE: Proposal for marshalling property type information > > > > > "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > The idea was to be specific here to avoid "polluting" > > > > PROPFIND replies with unnecessary information (as seen, > > > > for instance, in IIS). > > > > > > I understand, however what is pollution to one client is useful > > > information to another. > > > > Example? > > Any client retrieving a property whose type is unknown to them would > benefit. For example, if a RFC2518 (but not DeltaV) aware client retrieved > a DeltaV property it seems unfair that the client was not told of its data > type simply because "the property's data type is defined in [RFC2518] or a > related specification." It does not make clients forward compatible with > those future specifications. Understood. So would it possibly make sense to to change the wording to "he property's data type is defined in [RFC2518]" (leaving other specifications out)? I still think we don't need to return the types for RFC2518 defined properties... > (stuff deleted) > > > Good point. I always thought that a server MUST return <multistatus> > > on success, but RFC2518 seems to be silent about that. Certainly all > > examples show a 207. > > It was generally agreed on this list a while back that total > success may be > condensed to a simple 200 OK response. Your suggestion would require a > further modification to these servers. I see. Maybe this should be put onto the issues list then (for resolution in RFC2518). Do you think it would be a problem to require the 207 <multistatus> response in this case?
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 11:35:39 UTC