RE: Marshalling Depth > 0 responses for REPORTs, WAS: Replacing t he Label header with a DAV:labeled-version report

   From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:[email protected]]


      From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email protected]]

      Related question of the day: what's the response format for the
      version-tree report with depth: 1 applied to a collection that
      itself is not versioned but contains one version controlled member?

      So for depth 1 one would get:
      207 MULTISTATUS
      <multistatus xmlns="DAV:">
	<response>
	  <href>/collection/</href>
	  <status>HTTP/1.1 409 Conflict</status>
	  <responsedescription><error><supported-report/>
	    </error></responsedescription> </response>
	<response>
	  <href>/collection/a</href>
	  <propstat>
	    <prop>
	    ...now what?...
	    </prop>
	    <status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</status>
	  </propstat>
	</response>
      </multistatus>

      RFC3253 seems to indicate that the <prop> element for the version
      controlled member must return the requested report. The format for
      the version-tree report defines a multistatus response body. So
      would the <prop> element contain another <multistatus> sub-tree?

   Yes.

BTW, I'm not happy with that answer, but it is what RFC3253 says.
In retrospect, I wish we had given every REPORT response its own
xml element such as is done with the DAV:merge-preview-report
(possibly nesting the multistatus within that).

For any new reports we define, we definitely should do so.

Cheers,
Geoff