- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 16:52:09 -0500
- To: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- Cc: dawg comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
On Nov 4, 2005, at 4:49 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote: >> 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? > > OK. I've nothing extra to add. I still think a client is not going to > be able to reliably extract an error message, just detect the fault. No, I suspect that that's probably correct. The "error message" isn't standardized, so the only thing a client will be able to do is to try to do something with the body of the response. I think that's "extraction" enough, but I certainly see how it's not exactly ideal. I'll bring this to the WG's attention. Stay tuned for an answer. :> Cheers, Kendall -- It was a crime, I never told you 'bout the diamonds in your eyes.
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 21:52:25 UTC