RE: RFC2518 issue: format for multistatus when no property report ed at all

I don't like 3), but I can live with it.

I think the "proper" solution would be to allow 1) in rfc2518++.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 9:41 PM
> To: DAV
> Subject: RE: RFC2518 issue: format for multistatus when no property
> report ed at all
>
>
> I vote for "not 1" (:-).  I see no reason to break the DTD, with the
> potential
> for confusing clients/servers that are written to satisfy the DTD (as they
> should
> have been :-).  Between 2 and 3, I personally prefer 3, because it is
> terser,
> but I think clients should be prepared to handle either.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 10:06 AM
> To: DAV
> Subject: RFC2518 issue: format for multistatus when no property reported
> at all
>
>
> Consider a PROPFIND request like:
>
> 	<propfind xmlns='DAV:'><prop/></propfind>
>
> I think this is clearly legal (by the DTD) and it can make sense if you're
> for instance just getting a list of member URIs for a collection.
>
> What format do we expect for the response body?
>
> 1)
>
> <multistatus xmlns="DAV:">
>   <response>
>     <href>foobar</href>
>   </response>
> </multistatus>
>
>
> I think this makes a lot of sense, but it breaks the DTD for the response
> element.
>
>
> 2)
>
> <multistatus xmlns="DAV:">
>   <response>
>     <href>foobar</href>
>     <propstat>
>       <prop/>
>       <status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</status>
>     </propstat>
>   </response>
> </multistatus>
>
> Conforms to the DTD, but isn't really logical (because in this
> case you may
> expect a 200 propstat element in the case where all queried properties are
> reported as 404 NOT FOUND as welll).
>
>
> 3)
>
> <multistatus xmlns="DAV:">
>   <response>
>     <href>foobar</href>
>     <status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</status>
>   </response>
> </multistatus>
>
> Conforms to the DTD as well, but isn't very logical. Why would the status
> element on response be required, if it is not when properties *are*
> reported.
>
>
> Proposal:
>
> allow format 1).
>
> Julian
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 08:40:47 UTC