- From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:07:18 +0100
- To: "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
"Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Now I'm tempted to agree that these should be returned. A minor > issue is with DAV:getlastmodified, because it's format isn't > xs:dateTime, meaning that we have to define a datatype for it in > the spec. That's why I'd still prefer to leave them out. Whatever, the set of relevant properties is so small I don't think there is a problem either way. > > > I see. Maybe this should be put onto the issues list then (for > > > resolution in RFC2518). > > > > What is the issue? I don't think that there is any great harm to > > interop if > > some servers respond with 200OK and others return 207MultiStatus > > with 200OK > > for each response. > > The issue is that after reading the spec (and tracing IIS), authors > of client software might think that they'll always get a 207 which > apparently isn't the case (so I think this should be clarified). "...and tracing IIS..." thanks for the smile<g> I agree that clarification is good. As an aside, I wonder what a client would do if it received an unexpected 200 OK back from a PROPPATCH -- would a reasonable implementation really signal a failure? > > > Do you think it would be a problem to require the 207 <multistatus> > > > response in this case? > > > > You may get pushback from some server writers. > > Well, unless somebody suggests a better approach, I'll have to live with > that. Maybe you can get a few minutes in the London meeting to gauge feedback. The problem, of course, is that if people don't like it, they won't implement it. Regards, Tim
Received on Monday, 18 June 2001 05:38:59 UTC