Re: Issues: MKCOL_AND_302, IMPLIED_LWS, PUT_AND_INTERMEDIATE_COLLECTIONS, INTEROP_DELETE_AND_MULTISTATUS

The resolutions on the first 3 issues are fine with me.  WRT to
INTEROP_DELETE_AND_MULTISTATUS, my position was that a partial delete
is better classified as a "failure" (i.e. a new 4xx code), so unless
we identified a client that really depended on a 207 response from
DELETE, I'd be in favor of making this change (i.e. introducing a
4xx code that means "partial failure", and whose body is the same
DAV:multistatus currently found in a 207).

Cheers,
Geoff 

Lisa wrote on 06/22/2003 03:35:18 PM:

> 
> 
> 
> MKCOL_AND_302: This issue can be marked "inBis" if not CLOSED. 
> Draft -03 says that MKCOL can return 302 and there have been no 
> objections so far.
> 
> IMPLIED_LWS: This issue can be marked "inBis" if not CLOSED.  Draft 
> -03 says that the HTTP rules are imported "including the rules about
> implied linear white-space."
> 
> PUT_AND_INTERMEDIATE_COLLECTIONS: This issue can be marked "inBis" 
> if not CLOSED.  Draft -03 says "The server MUST NOT create those 
> intermediate collections automatically.”
> 
> INTEROP_DELETE_AND_MULTISTATUS: This is the old issue respecting how
> HTTP clients might be confused by a 207 response to a DELETE 
> message, believing it to be a success message  <http://lists.w3.

> org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1999AprJun/0062.html>.  Have we 
> got consensus to continue using 207, on the basis that by now it 
> would break far more WebDAV clients to *stop* using 207?
> 
> - Julian says continue using 207 but has also proposed switching to a 
4XX
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0049.html>
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0065.html>
> - Roy argues it violates RFC2616 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0046.html> 

> - My vote is to continue using 207
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0044.html>
> - The interim meeting attendees in Jan 2003 were unanimous in 
> continuing with 207
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0044.html>
> - John DeSoi points out that Netscape uses DELETE and 2XX should not
> be redefined
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0057.html>
> - Bob Denny says let's not violate RFC2616
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0048.html>
> - Geoff Clemm might want to clarify his position
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0065.html>
> 
> I don't think we have consensus yet overall.  Please discuss, 
> clarify, or even simply restate your position.
> 
> Lisa
> 
> 
>