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, 25 Oct 2011 17:22:39 +0200
Message-ID: <4EA6D43F.80707@w3.org>
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, Florian Stegmaier <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>, "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>

Le 25/10/2011 16:16, Yves Lafon a écrit :
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Thierry MICHEL wrote:
>> 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 ;-)
> Well, then why choosing the 2xx 4xx 5xx convention for
> success/client-side error/server-side errors ?

as there is already a well know semantic.

And also if we change these codes now, we should probably go for a third 
Last Call ..., and implementations already use these.

  As the link to HTTP is
> removed, it would probably be a good thing to document how to extend
> those codes. Apart from that, the decoupling changes goes in the right
> direction, yes.

> Also, in the previous email exchange [1], it was hinted that there was a
> tunnelling over HTTP in the implementation of this specification, while
> the specification itself doesn't call for this, so I hope that
> implementation won't forget the 'Web' aspect while implementing that API.

Florian or Werner could you respond to this ?

> Thanks,
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Oct/0043.html
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 15:23:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:44 UTC