- From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:13 -0800
- To: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I don't understand this bug. What's the problem? On 11/20/05 12:32 PM, "bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu" <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu> wrote: > > http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181 > > Summary: error element > Product: WebDAV-RFC2518-bis > Version: -08 > Platform: Other > URL: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav- > rfc2518bis-08.html#rfc.section.13.29 > OS/Version: other > Status: NEW > Severity: normal > Priority: P2 > Component: 13. XML Element Definitions > AssignedTo: joe-bugzilla@cursive.net > ReportedBy: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de > QAContact: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > > > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-08.html#rfc.sec > tion.13.29>: > > "Error responses, particularly 403 Forbidden and 409 Conflict, sometimes need > more information to indicate what went wrong. When an error response contains > a > body in WebDAV, the body is in XML with the root element 'error'. The 'error' > tag SHOULD include a standard error tag defined in this specification or > another > specification. The 'error' tag MAY include custom error tags (in custom > namespaces) which a client can safely ignore." > > Clients MAY ignore everything here. And that doesn't depend on where the > condition code is defined. > > Of course the better resolution is just to copy the text from RFC3253, and to > use it's terminology to be consistent with RFC3253, RFC3648 and RFC3744. > > > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 16:19:39 UTC