W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Format of protocol error bodies

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:36:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4FE08E8B.7010000@thefigtrees.net>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
One of our open comments is RC-2:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Sep/0002.html

To summarize, this was a comment from before we moved the SPARQL 
Protocol away from WSDL. In this comment, Richard Cyganiak was asking 
that we consider standardizing the format of fault message bodies -- he 
suggested at the time using the XML serialization based on the WSDL for 
malformed queries and query request refused.

His message sparked a long discussion thread, that included proponents 
of plain text error reporting, of content negotiation, and of leaving 
the format of error message bodies underspecified.

There was no consensus.

We as a working group have not spent time on the issue, but ought to 
discuss it via email or on a call, before replying to the message.

Greg and I have discussed this and believe that the format of error 
message bodies should remain underspecified, primarily due to:

* A lack of significant implementer experience with one particular 
format of error bodies
* A lack of clear community consensus

We also think that better HTTP status messages would help, and we'll 
update the examples in protocol to illustrate this. (Though this won't 
be any sort of conformance requirement.)

What do you think?

Lee
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 14:37:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:48 GMT