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

On 09/19/2013 09:37 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2013-09-19 15:25, Ken Murchison wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> 2.1
>>>
>>> "If the omission of such a DAV:propstat element would result in a
>>> DAV:response XML element containing zero DAV:propstat elements, then
>>> the server MUST substitute a DAV:propstat element consisting of an
>>> empty DAV:prop element and a DAV:status element of value 200 (OK)
>>> [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics] in its place."
>>>
>>> This seems to be here to keep the response DTD-valid. Did you consider
>>> just relaxing the DTD, and to allow a response without <DAV:prop>?
>>
>>
>> That is what the CalConnect members originally implemented as can be
>> seen in Appendix B.6, but I believe that one of the implementers was
>> concerned with this form of multi-status not being supported by
>> libraries.  If you think this is a show-stopper, I can take it back to
>> the CalDAV technical committee.
>
> Well, the application of the Preference may break clients in any case. 
> That's why it's optional, after all.
>
> It would be good to understand whether there indeed was a library 
> broken by this (and whether it's possible to fix it), or just some 
> kind of fear.

Can you confirm that the following would be a valid multistatus 
response?  I think we had some question on that.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<D:multistatus xmlns:D="DAV:">
   <D:response>
     <D:href>/container/</D:href>
     <D:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status>
   </D:response>
</D:multistatus>


-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University

Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 15:34:35 UTC