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: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:34:03 -0400
Message-ID: <523B196B.7030204@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
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:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status>

Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 15:34:35 UTC

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