RE: Proposal for marshalling property type information

Hi,

I've made some minor editorial changes, and added wording which should take
care of issues 1) and 2). I'm attaching the draft as XML/HTML/TXT and the
diffs from the last version.

Regards, Julian

> -----Original Message-----
> 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
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
>      dan
> --
> Daniel Brotsky, Adobe Systems
> tel 408-536-4150, pager 877-704-4062
> 2-way pager email: <mailto:page-dbrotsky@adobe.com>
>