Re: inconsistent reporting of DAV:error inside multistatus responses

Paritosh Shah wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> There are a few inconsistencies in the way DAV:error is
to be reported
> inside a multi-status response as per different RFCs.

Yes. See also 
<http:/
/tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3253#section-1.6 ) :-
> "In a 207 Multi-Status response, the DAV:error
element would appear in
> the appropriate DAV:responsedescription element."
> (RFC3744 also follows this definition)
> Example - http
://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3744#section-5.1.2
> 
> According to RFC2518bis
> (http://www.greenbytes.de/t
ech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#pre_post
) 
> 
> "In a 207 Multi-Status response, the XML element
MUST appear inside an
> 'error' element in the appropriate 'propstat or
'response' element
> depending on whether the condition applies to one or
more properties or
> to the resource as a whole"
> Example -
> http://www.greenbyte
s.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#DE
LETE-example 
> 
> 
> Do both types need to be supported ( depending on the
request - basic
> vs versioning ) ? Or, after 2518bis is published, would
it supercede
> 3253's definition ?

No, as far as I can tell, the intent was to change it, thus
servers 
should just implement what RFC4918 says. Of course this
means that 
RFC4918 should have stated "Updates RFC3253". This
was reported as issue 
<http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/s
how_bug.cgi?id=258> in 
February, but unfortunately not fixed (similarly to lots of
other 
issues...).

Best regards, Julian