- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:55:22 +0200
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 8:14 PM > To: Webdav WG > Subject: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > > ... > - Error responses that must contain headers (like 302) don't contain > those headers in multistatus. E.g. when you MOVE a collection, but one > of the collection members is redirected, a 302 would be most convenient > and normally comes along with a location. Clarify in 2518 bis. > ... That's in fact a very interesting problem, which is partly solved in the expired redirect references draft [1]. If we can come up with a similarm but more generic format, I'm all for it. But is it reasonable to attempt to resolve this in RFC2518bis? Julian [1] <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-02. html#rfc.section.7.3> -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 04:55:55 UTC