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 16:52:09 -0500
Message-Id: <483F60FD-04F1-4428-86B3-269710981F84@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: dawg comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
To: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>

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. :>

It was a crime, I never told you 'bout the diamonds in your eyes.
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 21:52:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:06 UTC