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

Fwd: our own status code 562 in HTTP ...

From: Florian Stegmaier <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:47:48 +0200
Message-Id: <3128A58E-C9C8-48D4-9FDB-34C2455B0680@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Dear all,

i had a look into the RFC4918 (WebDAV) as Yves proposed. As far as i  
understand, they follow several different ways of defining their  
status/error codes:

a) Usage of HTTP/1.1 status codes with different semantics
"[...] These HTTP codes are not redefined, but their use is somewhat  
extended by WebDAV methods and requirements. In general, many HTTP  
status codes can be used in response to any request, not just in cases  
described in this document. Note also that WebDAV servers are known to  
use 300-level redirect responses (and early interoperability tests  
found clients unprepared to see those responses). A 300-level response  
MUST NOT be used when the server has created a new resource in  
response to the request. [...]" (see [1])
-> We could follow this way and "somehow extend" an appropriate HTTP/ 
1.1 status code

b) Status Code Extensions to HTTP/1.1 (section 11)
-> From my point of view, maybe "11.2. 422 Unprocessable Entity" could  
be used instead of 462. But the semantics of it are not quiet the  
same. The definition is as follows:
The 422 (Unprocessable Entity) status code means the server  
understands the content type of the request entity (hence a  
415(Unsupported Media Type) status code is inappropriate), and the  
syntax of the request entity is correct (thus a 400 (Bad Request)  
status code is inappropriate) but was unable to process the contained  
instructions. For example, this error condition may occur if an XML  
request body contains well-formed (i.e., syntactically correct), but  
semantically erroneous, XML instructions. (see [1])

c) Different semantics for a status code due to its use in different  
domains (e.g., 403 Forbidden in [3] vs. 403 Forbidden in [4])

Inside the PROPFIND [5] method, they specify several different status  
codes. It seems, they have not covered the case if a property is  
called which is not implemented. Maybe the following would fit?

404 Not Found - The property does not exist. (section 9.1.2.) -> Maybe  
we should use 404 and use our own more specific description?

These are the findings i can provide until now.

Best,
Florian

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4918#section-12
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4918#section-11.2
[3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4918#section-9.1.1
[4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4918#section-9.1.2
[5] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4918#section-9.1

Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail:

> Von: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
> Datum: 26. September 2011 08:13:07 GMT+02:00
> An: Florian Stegmaier <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>,  "public-media-annotation@w3.org 
> " <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
> Betreff: Fwd: Re: our own status code 562 in HTTP ...
> Antwort an: tmichel@w3.org
>
> Florian,
>
> Could you please take a look at Yves's proposal
>
> We could dicuss it tomorrow during the MAWG telecon.
>
> Thierry.
>
>
>
> -------- Message original --------
> Sujet: Re: our own status code 562 in HTTP ...
> Date : Sun, 25 Sep 2011 02:27:01 -0400 (EDT)
> De : Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
> Pour : Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
> Copie à : public-media-annotation@w3.org <public-media-annotation@w3.org 
> >
>
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Thierry MICHEL wrote:
>
>> Today during the call of the Request for a Transition to CR: API  
>> for Media
>> Resources 1.0
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/API10/CR/
>>
>>
>> The Director has rejected the Transition due to the MAWG response  
>> to the
>> following comment sent during Last Call: use of HTTP 501
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Aug/0031.html
>>
>> The MAWG response:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Sep/0043.html
>> ------------
>>
>> We have discussed this issue during the 12th Face-to-Face meeting  
>> and agreed
>> that the 501 status code does not fit our needs. In order to have a  
>> clear
>> semantic, we have decided to declare our own status code, as follows:
>> - Numerical Code: 562
>> - Textual description: Property not supported
>> - Example: only a subset of GET methods for properties implemented
>
> I'd like to understand clearly what is the intended meaning of this.
> I noted as well a 462 "Property not defined in Source Format" which  
> seems
> to be really a 404.
> You should take a look at WebDAV, RFC4918 and the way they retrieve
> properties <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4918> .
>
> You should also take a look at RFC5988 for HTTP linking.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988
>
>
>
>> ---------------------------------
>>
>> as defined in our API spec
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/API10/CR/Overview.html#api-status-codes
>>
>>
>>
>> The Director said that we should have your agreement Yves, as HTTP  
>> spec
>> editor, for this declaration of our own status code 562.
>>
>> This is not part of the main HTTP 1.1 protocol, are there  
>> guidelines anywhere
>> for implementing proprietary HTTP error codes?
>> If you agree we can proceed the Transition.
>>
>> Or would you suggest another solution ?
>>
>> We must solve this issue before moving the API spec forward.
>>
>> Thanks for your help,
>>
>> Thierry.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
>
>        ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 07:45:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 September 2011 07:46:01 GMT