- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:54:31 +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: Monday, June 18, 2001 11:07 AM > To: WebDAV WG > Subject: RE: Proposal for marshalling property type information > > > > > "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. OK, this allows me to avoid specifying a datatype for RFC dates in the spec. > 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? Depends on what you call reasonable. I haven't written a client yet, but up until your comment I would have been tempted to think I'll always get a multistatus. > > > > 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. Which meeting?
Received on Monday, 18 June 2001 17:37:24 UTC