W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Returning HTTP codes with HTML descriptions.

From: Andrei Sambra <andrei@fcns.eu>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 19:52:57 -0400
Message-ID: <50945CD9.8030007@fcns.eu>
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 11/02/2012 07:20 PM, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> On 11/03/2012 12:11 AM, Andrei Sambra wrote:
>> On 11/02/2012 06:58 PM, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2012 09:45 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
>>>> hello.
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 2, 2012, at 12:54, "Andrei Sambra" <andrei@fcns.eu
>>>> <mailto:andrei@fcns.eu>> wrote:
>>>>> For example, applications may not "speak" LDP at start (i.e. misusing
>>>>> REST verbs), thus resulting in '405 Method Not Allowed' errors. It
>>>>> would
>>>>> be nice to have some HTML describing what they did wrong.
>>>>
>>>> instead of just using HTML, i suggest to have a look at
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-problem-01 and see how
>>>> well it would fit. i think pretty good. the next version is supposed to
>>>> add XML support (i'm working on a schema).
>>>
>>> There are some interesting ideas in this spec, but in our case, the
>>> client already understands RDF, so I don't see why we would return
>>> anything but RDF for "problem details".
>>
>> I'm fine with returning RDF too. The reason why I suggested HTML was to
>> serve as a simple debugging message (a warning) for the developers
>> trying to use the LD platform. The way I see it in this case, RDF would
>> serve a better purpose if these messages were to change frequently,
>> though I don't really have a use case for this in my mind right now.
>
> If a DELETE on an LDPC fails because of one of the underlying LDPRs,
> I'd like to know which one, potentially to make a choice based on this
> information.

All the more reason to put all this into writing.

>
> As my application is already supposed to understand RDF somehow, RDF
> just makes sense to express this information.
>
> If the information is for the "developers trying to use the LD
> platform" then I believe that TURTLE will do it better than HTML
> anyway.
>
> The same reasoning apply to all the other cases.
>
>>
>> It would be nice to have a system like this in place for
>> interoperability tests, since I believe many of us are eager to start
>> implementing stuff. :-)
>
> I agree, and this makes a case for a machine-readable format. I'm
> planning to make that part of my proposal re: testing.

Let me know if I can help in any way.

Andrei

> Alexandre.
>
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>>>
>>> Alexandre.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>>
>>>> dret.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 2 November 2012 23:53:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:42 UTC