W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: SPARQL Protocol Test Suite Update

From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:42:17 +0100
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20051024134217.GA5876@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 09:21:54 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote:
> 
> On 13:29, Mon 24 Oct 05, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> > == "select-refused"
> > 
> > Not sure why the query is to be refused.
> > 
> > I'd return a 400 (BAD REQUEST) if query is sent that the (mythical) service 
> > description had said it was not supported in some way (e.g. described 
> > dataset but the service only has a fixed dataset).  It is not a server 
> > error if the client sends a request the server has said it can't handle.
> 
> This is *really* a comment against the protocol spec, isn't it? One I've
> heard from and discussed with Steve a long time ago (well, relatively
> speaking), and one we discussed during the telcon on IRC last week.
> 
> I won't repeat that discussion (for the 3rd time) here; suffice to say, for
> now, I'm not convinced. The 5xx error series is *not* for server "errors"
> only. The first sentence of 10.5 Server Error 5xx says, quite plainly,
> "Response status codes beginning with the digit "5" indicate cases in which
> the server is aware that it has erred or is incapable of performing the
> request." I take "unwilling" to be a special case of "incapable". While the
> spec presently says QueryRequestRefused is to be bound to 500, I'd be happy
> with it returning 501. 

501 is more specific, and so seems better to me.

- Steve
Received on Monday, 24 October 2005 13:42:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT