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: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:14:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4E9E86F2.10301@w3.org>
To: Florian Stegmaier <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org
OOps, here is the diff file ...

http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2008%2FWebVideo%2FAnnotations%2Fdrafts%2FAPI10%2FCR%2FOverview.html&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2F2008%2Fvideo%2Fmediaann%2Fmediaont-api-1.0%2Fmediaont-api-1.0.html


Looking more into your edits

You have not updated the following lines in the table

400 	Bad Request 	syntactical error with respect to the GET method used

change to

400 	Bad Request 	syntactical error

562 	Property not supported 	only a subset of GET methods for properties 
implemented

change to

562 	Property not supported 	a subset of properties implemented



Thierry.

Le 19/10/2011 09:59, Thierry MICHEL a écrit :
>
>
> Le 19/10/2011 08:30, Florian Stegmaier a écrit :
>> Hi Thierry!
>>
>> I have reflected your edits regarding the API section into the DEV space:
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html#api-status-codes
>>
>>
>> Are there any further edits to do?
>
> I had updates the Acknowledgements
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/API10/CR/Overview.html#acknowledgements
>
>
> And Status of this document section.
> And This, latest and previous versions. .
>
>
> I have run a diff of the two version
>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/API10/CR/Overview.html
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html
>
>
> The diif analysis seems wrong:
> Curiously it reports diffs that are not different in the two documents ;-((
>
>
>
>>
>> Best,
>> Florian
>> _____________________________
>> Dipl. Inf. Florian Stegmaier
>> Chair of Distributed Information Systems
>> University of Passau
>> Innstr. 43
>> 94032 Passau
>>
>> Room 248 ITZ
>>
>> Tel.: +49 851 509 3063
>> Fax: +49 851 509 3062
>>
>> stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de
>> https://www.dimis.fim.uni-passau.de/iris/
>> http://twitter.com/fstegmai
>> _____________________________
>>
>> Am 18.10.2011 um 14:26 schrieb Thierry MICHEL:
>>
>>> 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 Wednesday, 19 October 2011 08:15:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 October 2011 08:15:10 GMT