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: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:26:50 +0200
Message-ID: <4E9D708A.4060607@w3.org>
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Yves,

We have discussed this issue during the MAWG telecon.


These status code are not on the HTTP level, but on a layer on top of it.

As these are on different layers, we have decided to remove the wording 
and references to HTTP to avoid any confusion.

Therefore the "4.7 API Status Codes" section
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/API10/CR/Overview.html#api-status-codes

The section does not mentions HTTP nor refers to it.
The intro paragraph now says:

[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 MediaAnnotation object 
returned by a method call to the API. These status codes are used on the 
API level, and applied to either client side or server side 
implementations.]


If you see a coincidence between the Numerical Code and the HTTP staus 
code, it is only a coincidence ;-)


I hope that this resolution fits your comment. Let us know.

Best,

Thierry.







Le 18/10/2011 11:37, Yves Lafon a écrit :
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Thierry MICHEL wrote:
>
>>
>> Yves,
>>
>> We are still stuck with this HTTP status codes issue, blocking the API
>> spec moving to CR.
>>
>> Following your last comment
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Oct/0042.html
>>
>>
>> Werner has responded to it on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:22:34
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Oct/0043.html
>>
>>
>> Could you please give us a response has we need your approval on a
>> resolution to move forward.
>
> Well, errors and successful responses are all tunnelled in HTTP 200, so
> basically you are partially reinventing SOAP (well, not even, SOAP 1.1
> used HTTP 500 for SOAP faults), if the group wants to keeps thing as is,
> at least confusion should be cleared about fault codes mimicking HTTP
> but being used in an antithetic way to HTTP.
>
>> We have a Media Annotation WG telecon today at 13h00 (French time).
>> Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 6294 ("MAWG")
>> IRC channel: #mediaann
>>
>> Could you please join this telecon to come to a resolution?
>
> No, sorry.
>
>>
>> Best, Thierry.
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:27:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:27:21 GMT