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

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

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:04:17 -0400 (EDT)
To: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1110111056440.23535@wnl.j3.bet>
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Thierry MICHEL wrote:

> 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.

Ok, so it means that you are tunnelling pseudo-http over htt, or partially 
subverting real HTTP codes with your in-object status.

> 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.

Well, in your case, the WG decided to respond with a 5XX to a request from 
the client that should trigger a 4XX (missing _requested_ property).

>
> 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.

Why doing this tunnelling instead of reusing the HTTP response code?

> 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
>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 15:04:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 October 2011 15:04:29 GMT