W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?

From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:48:56 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOgESpx+a2-767ejoksMgXsTjFgQpr4r9fvFjr3O1T33LA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Grahame Grieve <grahame@healthintersections.com.au>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2013-01-24 04:18, Grahame Grieve wrote:
>> What would be right http status code to use? It's a client error, right?
>> The nearest appropriate status code would be 422, but I'm not sure
>> whether that can be used outside webdav. Either way, there's a bunch
> It can.
> [...]
> Augmenting error handling for web services is an interesting topic. See
> prior proposals about Link relations, or a JSON typed response body format
> for 4xx/5xx.

I've seen APIs that handle errors in JSON-encoded response bodies,
including one that always returns success in HTTP but errors in the
response body, which is kinda weird, but if none of the HTTP status
codes make sense...  (that was the author's defense).

Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 17:49:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:09 UTC