- From: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:30:39 -0700
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97 Summary: new error code descriptions Product: WebDAV-RFC2518-bis Version: -07 Platform: Other URL: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav- rfc2518bis-07.html#rfc.section.11.6 OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: 11. Use of HTTP Status Codes AssignedTo: joe-bugzilla@cursive.net ReportedBy: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de QAContact: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org As stated earlier, I think it's a mistake to repeat what other specs already say normatively. In the best case, it's text duplication. In other case, it just creates confusion, such as in: "Any request may contain a conditional header defined in HTTP (If-Match, If-Modified-Since, etc.) or the "If" conditional header defined in this specification. If the request contains a conditional header, and if that condition fails to hold, then this error code may be returned. This status code is not typically appropriate if the client did not include a conditional header in the request." What is the last sentence trying to state here? Does this mean there are cases where it is appropriate to send a 412 although there was no conditional header? What case would that be? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 06:30:45 UTC