W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: HTTP Status Codes for QueryRequestRefused

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:56:18 -0500
Message-Id: <2F115F59-DE70-4990-959D-0AFD6F908C6C@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com

On Jan 11, 2006, at 10:39 AM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> The one I have difficulty is how a security problem (403) is not a  
> refusal by the service.

Overloading overloading overloading overloading.

Our WSDL serializes *no* fault with 403. Thus, any 403 returned is  
NOT a WSDL fault. It *cannot* be a WSDL fault. QueryRequestRefused  
*is* a WSDL fault. Thus 403 cannot be a refusal by the service.

Yr systematically confusing situations where natural language  
speakers might use the English verb "to refuse" with situations where  
QueryRequestRefused is being returned as a WSDL fault. This is at  
least the third time I've explained this, Andy, and yet you accuse me  
in private email of "avoiding concrete examples". -sigh-

HTTP 403 *cannot* be a WSDL-refusal by the WSDL service *per  
definitionem* because the *only* way to refuse *in the WSDFL fault  
sense* is to return 500. If a service returns 403, it hasn't refused  
in the sense of QueryRequestRefused or of WSDL, which is the only  
sense that matters.

Can you or someone else use the English verb "to refuse" to describe  
what it has done? Of course, but that doesn't make it a WSDL fault.

Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 16:02:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:50 UTC