- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:12:14 +0200
- To: "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Stefan Eissing > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:30 AM > To: WebDAV > Subject: Re: need clarification about COPY to locked resource response > code > > ... > > Am Montag den, 15. April 2002, um 23:59, schrieb Jason Crawford: > > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002JanMar/0098.html > > > > I don't think the above comment was resolved. > > > > Do we want to make a change to the spec? > > I don't feel strongly about it. If, then I would list 207 as > possible status code of COPY/MOVE (where there are completely > absent now) and explain that 423 LOCKED will only map to locked They are missing from the status tables, but they are mentioned in descriptions and examples. > request-uri. If any other uri (destination included) makes trouble, > clients should be able to deal with a 207. I think the issue is that - 423 is used both for LOCK problems on source and destination URIs, - there doesn't seem to be any prior usage of multistatus to describe information about destination URIs. The cleanest "solution" (although not backward-compatible) would be to have a separate status code for the condition "destination locked". However, we are currently talking about RFC2518, so we're probably stuck with the ambiguity. In a future WebDAV protocol that supports enhanced error reporting a la RFC3253, I'd probably suggest: 409 CONFLICT ... <error xmlns='DAV:'><destination-URI-is-locked/></error> > > Are we clear on what URL we need to point reference in the multi-status > > response for various lock problems? > > I don't understand that question. Can you elaborate? I understand that as: is it actually allowed (in copy/move/delete) to use multistatus to report problems on destination resources?
Received on Friday, 19 April 2002 04:12:51 UTC