- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:31:03 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
These two statements are not inconsistent. There are two formats for Multi-status responses; there are at least three legal formats for PROPFIND responses. A PROPFIND response is not always a Multi-Status response (in the case of errors). Lisa On Dec 1, 2006, at 11:22 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Lisa Dusseault schrieb: >> Yeah, the section reference is wrong, I can fix that. I'll >> continue to use my own wording for the rest as it's not quite true >> that there's two different formats (I can think of three: empty >> body, 'error' body or 'multistatus'). > > So then why does Section 13 say (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/ > draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-16.html#rfc.section.13>): > > --- > A Multi-Status response uses one out of two distinct formats for > representing the status: > > 1. A 'status' element as child of the 'response' element > indicates the status of the message excecution for the identified > resource as a whole (for instance, see Section 9.6.2). Some method > definitions provide information about specific status codes clients > should be prepared to see in a response. However, clients MUST be > able to handle other status codes, using the generic rules defined > in Section 10 of [RFC2616]. > 2. For PROPFIND and PROPPATCH, the format has been extended > using the 'propstat' element instead of 'status', providing > information about individual properties of a resource. This format > is specific to PROPFIND and PROPPATCH, and is described in detail > in Section 9.1 and Section 9.2. > --- > > ?? > > Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 1 December 2006 19:31:16 UTC