W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: need clarification about COPY to locked resource response code

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>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEPBEGAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> 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

In a future WebDAV protocol that supports enhanced error reporting a la
RFC3253, I'd probably suggest:


<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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:25 UTC