- From: Tim Ellison <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:50:24 +0100
- To: WebDAV Working Group <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
"Dan Brotsky" <dbrotsky@Adobe.COM> wrote: > I also like Julian's proposal and would be glad to see it > incorporated into 2518. But there are a few questions related to > live properties that I'm hoping Julian and others would comment on: > > 1. I work on a number of servers that have specialized live > ("computed" in the deltaV sense) properties for workflow tracking. > It seems that we could use the extended PROPFIND to indicate to > clients the datatype of those properties, but Julian only shows an > example where the client has indicated the datatype. Were live > properties expected to obey the same extension rule? If so we might > want to clarify this and add an example. I suggest we say that servers MAY return type information for live proeprties. > 2. Some of my servers implement "type-restricted" live properties > which are essentially dead properties whose values are restricted to > a certain datatype. These servers will reject PROPPATCH requests > that use the wrong datatype whether or not the client has declared a > datatype in the PROPPATCH. Julian's proposal shows an example of a > 422 response when the PROPPATCH-declared datatype doesn't match the > datatype of the value; I would also like to use such a response when > the value's datatype doesn't match the PROPFIND-shown (and enforced) > datatype. How does this strike people? Great. Tim
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2001 06:09:10 UTC