W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > October 2010

Re: SPARQL 1.1 Protocol: Format of fault messages

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 18:40:34 +0100
Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <45D9B134-04F6-4312-AF63-A787C0F86302@cyganiak.de>
To: Richard Newman <rnewman@twinql.com>

On 4 Oct 2010, at 17:33, Richard Newman wrote:
>>> There can be no justification for requiring a separate parser just  
>>> for error reporting.
> In that case, all errors must be reported primarily using protocol  
> mechanisms  HTTP error codes and headers, and SOAP faults  and  
> only secondarily through any response body.

Are you seriously suggesting that the protocol should define that  
error messages be communicated in JSON or Turtle or something else  
that requires a parser other than an XML parser?

If so, then can you give me an example of an existing SPARQL client  
that parses error messages but does not parse successful responses?

And if that is not the case, then what is the closest equivalent in  
another, similar, protocol?

Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 17:41:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:11 UTC