W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > July 2014

RE: Proposed resolution for ISSUE-64 (status codes)

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:22:44 -0400
To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <04c901cfacf4$cf54c2b0$6dfe4810$@gmx.net>
On 30 Jul 2014 at 09:25, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> ISSUE 64: Review HTTP status codes for non-existing / empty fragments
> The current spec says: 	. reply with status code 200 OK if the
> (page) with the given URL exists and is non-empty, i.e., one or more
> triples match the selector; 	. reply with status code 404 Not Found if
> the fragment (page) with the given URL does not exist or is empty, i.e.,
> no triples match the selector. 	. reply with status code 404 Not
> if the selector is invalid i.e., the parameter values are not in the
> domain of the selector. This is the case if, for instance, a literal is
> used as subject. However, it is argued that 404 might not be the best
> status code for all cases. 400 might be appropriate for invalid requests
> that will never have matches (i.e., literal as subject - case 3).
> Remove all MUSTs about status codes,

s/Remove all MUSTs about/Remove all normative statements about/

> add that the server SHOULD return 400 for invalid triple patterns.

This doesn't have to be normative either. I'd include a non-normative phrase
or an example instead.

> We can then also drop the requirement for servers to respond to HEAD.


Markus Lanthaler
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2014 19:23:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:42 UTC