W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > October 2011

follow up on the HTTP status codes for API spec to CR.

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:33:19 +0200
Message-ID: <4E94297F.9070401@w3.org>
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Yves, Philippe,

This is our follow up on the HTTP status codes issue raised during the
Transition call of the API spec to CR.

The MAWG has discussed this issue and we have come up with a proposal:
First let me clarify our analysis:

1- We are not using these status codes as return values of an HTTP
request, but as a status in the methods of our API. We think this makes
a difference.


2- We had a look at the WebDAV spec. WebDAV is an example that defines
new status codes beyond those of the original HTTP 1.1 spec (e.g. 507
in
[1]).

RFC 2616 states in section 6.1:
"HTTP status codes are extensible. HTTP applications are not required
      to understand the meaning of all registered status codes, though
such
      understanding is obviously desirable. However, applications MUST
      understand the class of any status code, as indicated by the first
      digit, and treat any unrecognized response as being equivalent to
the
      x00 status code of that class, with the exception that an
      unrecognized response MUST NOT be cached. For example, if an
      unrecognized status code of 431 is received by the client, it can
      safely assume that there was something wrong with its request and
      treat the response as if it had received a 400 status code. In such
      cases, user agents SHOULD present to the user the entity returned
      with the response, since that entity is likely to include human-
      readable information which will explain the unusual status."

-->  We think that our extension would confirm to this even if it was a
real response to an HTTP  request. As it is *not an HTTP response*, the
issue is even less critical in the group's opinion.

RESOLUTION:
-----------

We have added the following statement in the API specification [2]

[
This section introduces a set of status codes for the defined API to
indicate the system behavior. As described in section 4.4, the status
code is returned as one of the attributes of the Media Annotation
object
returned by a method call to the API.

The status codes follow the scheme of the HTTP/1.1 [HTTP11] status
codes, because developers are familiar with it. This choice does not
imply any specific link with HTTP, nor are the status codes used as
part
of the actual HTTP response. Status codes from HTTP/1.1 are used with
the same semantics as in [HTTP11] whenever possible, adding specific
codes when needed. These specific codes are extensions in conformance
with section 6.1 of [HTTP11].
]

--------

Yves and Philippe could you please confirm that you agree to our
resolution. Then we will proceed to Transition to CR.

Best,

Thierry
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 11:33:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 October 2011 11:33:54 GMT