- From: Bernard Desruisseaux <bernard.desruisseaux@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:57:48 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
[ For those not subscribed to www-webdav-dasl, I've copied the beginning of this thread at the end of this message. ] Julian Reschke wrote: > Bernard Desruisseaux wrote: > >> The declaration of the DAV:multistatus element in RFC 2518 >> (section 12.9) specifies that at least one DAV:response >> element must appear in a DAV:multistatus element. >> >> Is that an issue? > > > It's an issue with the original definition, which has (or should have > been) updated in RFC3253 and RFC2518bis. > > > Julian > It's "should have been". :-) RFC3253 simply makes reference to RFC 2518, Section 12.9 for the definition of multistatus. RFC2518bis (-06) still declare DAV:multistatus as follow: <!ELEMENT multistatus (response+, responsedescription?) > Do you want to open an issue for each document, and perhaps clarify in the search draft (although RFC2518bis should end up being published before search) ? Thanks, Bernard ---------------------- Julian Reschke wrote: > Bernard Desruisseaux wrote: > >> >> What is SEARCH supposed to return as a response when >> no matching resource was found? > > > > Status 207 with an empty DAV:multistatus response element. This should follow from...: > > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-search-latest.html#rfc.section.2.3> > > > Julian >
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 14:58:45 UTC