- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:10:22 -0400
- To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
From: Stefan Eissing [mailto:stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de] Am Freitag den, 19. April 2002, um 10:12, schrieb Julian Reschke: > 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> I don't like this for the simple reason that clients need hardcoded information about each DAV:error _and_ they need to know how to handle HTTP status codes. I don't see the problem. Either the client does not care about the reason for the error (in which case it just ignores the DAV:error value), or it does care, in which case it needs the explanation provided by the DAV:error value. The advantage of having both is that you have a simple error code for simple clients, and a more comprehensive error code for more sophisticated clients. So I would prefer to use existing HTTP status codes over new DAV:errors. You can't pack sufficient information into the few bits provided by the HTTP status codes, without having the error codes mean subtly different things for different methods (the unfortunate path initiated by 2518, but avoided by 3253). Otherwise you need to define also DAV:destination-is-not-accesible, DAV:destination-parent-is-locked, etc. You define errors at whatever is the appropriate level of detail that is useful for interoperable implementations. If the distinction between "destination is not accessible" and "destination parent is locked" is sufficiently important to merit separate error codes, then separate error codes should be defined. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Saturday, 20 April 2002 21:10:54 UTC