- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:09:18 -0800
- To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> > Actually, I agree that RFC2518 has a better error > marshalling mechanism > > I assume that's a typo :-) Yeah, oops, that was a typo :) > Yes, and I think that's something that should be possibly > fixed in RFC3253. > Failure to meet a postcondition (after all preconditions were > verified) > always is a server bug and thus would belong into the 5xx > range. The main > question is: which spec should fix that? I'd really like to > see RFC2518bis > to pick up (and clarify) this kind of error typing (maybe in > a way that > makes it optional?). Seems reasonable to me, as long as it is optional. Other opinions?
Received on Saturday, 15 February 2003 13:09:23 UTC