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

Re: Returning HTTP codes with HTML descriptions.

From: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 23:46:29 -0400
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC6011C50.A907C9D8-ONC1257AAB.001490EC-85257AAB.0014BC29@us.ibm.com>
Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote on 11/02/2012 06:58:11 PM:

> From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
> To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>, 
> Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, Andrei Sambra 
<andrei@fcns.eu>
> Date: 11/02/2012 06:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Returning HTTP codes with HTML descriptions.
> 
> 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 think the server should honor Accept header when replying with error 
messaging too.  This is what I've done in practice, the non-HTML could 
always refer to some HTML page that could be fetched if additional human 
readable details where needed.


Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> 
http://open-services.net
Received on Saturday, 3 November 2012 03:47:05 UTC

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