- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 20:54:51 +0200
- To: "Dan Brotsky" <dbrotsky@Adobe.COM>, "WebDAV Working Group" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dan Brotsky > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:24 PM > To: WebDAV Working Group > Subject: RE: Proposal for marshalling property type information > > > 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 Correct. > 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. Good idea. Which example should I take? Maybe som property from the deltaV spec? > 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? I think this would make sense. Do we need clients to be able to distinguish between both error conditions?
Received on Saturday, 30 June 2001 14:55:05 UTC