W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > November 2005

Re: SPARQL Protocol Spec Examples

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:40:16 -0500
Message-Id: <DE53C0BD-CBCA-4D49-A9D8-FC7D2A0E111B@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
To: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>


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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:49 GMT