RE: Issues PUT_AND_INTERMEDIATE_COLLECTIONS and INTEROP_DELETE_A ND_MULTISTATUS

If widely deployed clients (e.g. MS office) would not choke on this change,
I would support doing as Julian suggests.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 1:19 PM
To: John DeSoi; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Subject: RE: Issues PUT_AND_INTERMEDIATE_COLLECTIONS and
INTEROP_DELETE_AND_MULTISTATUS



> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of John DeSoi
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 2:25 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> Subject: RE: Issues PUT_AND_INTERMEDIATE_COLLECTIONS and
> INTEROP_DELETE_AND_MULTISTATUS
>
>
>
>
> At 4:49 PM +0100 1/22/03, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >  > Lisa Dusseault:
> >>  > few HTTP clients do authoring, and those that do are at
> least aware that
> >>  > 207 is a multistatus response
> >>
> >>  Netscape/Mozilla Composer is an HTTP authoring tool that is not
> >>  aware of 207.
> >
> >Yes. But as far as I understand it's abandoned as well. The
> solution here is
> >to make sure that when/if Mozilla 1.x starts supporting
> authoring again, it
> >will pay attention to RFC2518 semantics.
>
> Netscape/Mozilla still supports editing with Composer and works fine
> with my WebDAV server (using HTTP PUT). I don't believe it supports a

You are right. For some reason I thought that this was supposed to work
using "save", which was greyed out when a web resource was opened. In fact,
it's "Publish". You learn something new every day.

> DELETE method; but since HTTP does define a DELETE method, I don't
> see how WebDAV can justify redefining the meaning of 2xx status codes.

Well. The main justification is that it has been doing this for almost 4
years now, and

- there wasn't a big outcry, and
- it doesn't seem to negatively affect anybody.

That being said, from a consistency p.o.v. I agree. I'll assume for a moment
that few WebDAV clients indeed *do* evaluate a 207 on DELETE (and other
candidates such as LOCK/COPY...), and those probably would be easy to
upgrade. If this is true, all we'd need to do is

- deprecate status of 207 for failures
- introduce a new 4xx code such as INCOMPLETE OPERATION which would carry
the same multistatus body

Feedback appreciated.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 13:51:41 UTC