W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: Response when no matching resource was found

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:25:26 +0100
Message-ID: <41C1A8E6.6090204@gmx.de>
To: Bernard Desruisseaux <bernard.desruisseaux@oracle.com>
CC: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Bernard Desruisseaux wrote:
> [ 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.

Indeed. This probably is OK because all REPORTs defined in RFC3253 
indeed return at a minimum of one result.

The new REPORTs on RFC3744 (ACL) may return empty sets and explicitly 
say so.

> 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) ?

The DTD fragments aren't normative anyway (thus RFC3744 doesn't attempt 
to modify them). It's arguable whether RFC2518 needs to be fixed. In a 
perfect world, RFC2518bis would be done soon and include the base 
definition for REPORT, but somehow I fear it won't happen in the 
foreseeable future.


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 15:26:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:33 UTC