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


From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 15:52:13 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103F8B1A5@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
The reason not to reuse it is that this is not a "response"
element, but rather an "explanation" element (i.e. the same
reason you would not re-use a "point" element to represent
a "vector" element, even though they both contained 2 integers).
In particular, it is likely that you will want to extent a
"response" in ways that are inappropriate for an "explanation",
and vica versa.

Of course, as with most questions of re-use, it is a value
judgement as to "how close" two concepts are to each other,
and how likely it is for them to evolve in divergent ways.


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:30 PM
To: Clemm, Geoff; WebDAV

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 9:11 PM
> To: WebDAV
> I don't think that it makes sense to try to re-use
> DAV:response in the "explanation" part of the error message,
> because you don't need another responsedescription,
> and it is not clear that the HTTP status codes are a
> useful way of characterizing what about the state of
> the other resource contributed to the error being described.

Well, we need 

- the URI and
- error information (be it an HTTP status or a DAV:error element).

DAV:response is a container that can hold both, so why not re-use it?
Received on Monday, 6 May 2002 15:55:26 UTC

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