- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:40:16 -0500
- To: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Nov 4, 2005, at 3:30 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> However I still think its worth defining the format(s) in which
> faults will be returned otherwise a client won't be able to
> reliably extract an error message: will it be the complete response
> body, within some arbitrary XML structure, embedded somewhere in an
> (X)HTML document?
Well, as I said, it's the HTTP status code. A client can reliably
extract that like:
if response.status_code == "500":
print "Hi mom!"
The fault is serialized in HTTP and the WG's design allows any other
information be put into the body of the response. We're not mandating
a format or a MIME type.
> While the types in the spec may be used abstractly in the WSDL, I
> don't think there reason not to mandate them as the preferred format
> for the error message.
Well, sure there is. Lotsa people might want to use RDF or XHTML or
HTML or... We didn't reach any consensus about this yet.
I suspect the only way to bring this up again for WG consideration is
if there is some new information that vitiates or problematizes the
existing design. Do you know of anything like that?
Cheers,
Kendall
--
It was a crime, I never told you 'bout the diamonds in your eyes.
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 20:40:29 UTC