W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-05.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:44:44 +0200
Message-ID: <523B0DDC.9010002@gmx.de>
To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
CC: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On 2013-09-19 16:05, Ken Murchison wrote:
> ...
>>> The argument here is that we don't want the client to have to parse a
>>> body if the request is successful.  Do you recommend that we specify 204
>>> instead?
>> The client doesn't need to parse the body, even if it's non empty.
> This is true, but including anything in the body defeats the purpose of
> return=minimal.  The 2xx response code tells the client that all
> instructions were performed successfully so there is no need for any
> other verbiage.
> ...

I agree there's no need. I just wonder how strong the requirement no to 
return anything is. I want to avoid a situation where clients blow up 
just because they get a tiny status message.

>> We can allow 204 as well; but we should stick with standard HTTP; and
>> over there it's not uncommon that servers send a short text/plain or
>> text/html result, even if it's not needed.
> OK.  How would you specify  the use of return=minimal with PROPPATCH and
> MKCOL/MKCALENDAR, or do you think that it can't be applied to these
> methods in the real world?

Just state that the response can be any suitable success message (200, 
201, 204), and - for 200/201 - a response payload (a) is not needed and 
(b) does not need to be processed.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 14:45:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:45 UTC