- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:33:19 +0200
- To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > ... > > Good point. As far as I can tell, this text was inherited from RFC3253 > > (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3253.html#rfc.section.1.6>). > > Geoff, do you remember what this is supposed to mean? Can/should we > > clarify that? > > This is just a placeholder for our deciding to marshal things differently. > In particular, suppose we had a request header that specified "return error > information in html format" (that was contemplated at one time). Then the > error info would be marshalled as html in the response body, rather than > in the xml format that is used by default. So should we change anything here to clarify? > > > 7.1.1 > > > - I think this would be clearer if it included D:resource-id in the > > > request and response, so you could tell where the loop happened. Are > > > resource-id's likely to be costly to return? > > > > No, they should be cheap. I think we should update the example > accordingly. > > I agree. -> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.issue.7.1.1_add_resource_id> > .. Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 07:33:54 UTC