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

Re: Status of comment RC-2

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:50:54 +0100
Message-ID: <5060C7AE.7020305@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Do we have a concrete example of such a limitation in existing software?

	Andy

On 24/09/12 20:10, Gregory Williams wrote:
> I talked a bit with Richard Cyganiak off-list last week about his
> outstanding comment (RC-2) regarding error messages in the Protocol
> spec. I tried to explain the reasoning behind our recent desire to
> use non-normative language to suggest the use the HTTP status message
> line to indicate the type of error (while otherwise leaving the
> format of error messages un-specified). He is not happy with this
> approach, suggesting that limitations of existing software makes the
> use of the http status message difficult or impossible in many
> cases.
>
> He is still suggesting that the protocol normatively recommend (but
> not require) that error messages be returned as text/plain,
> encouraging interoperability of tools that need to produce and
> consume errors generated by endpoints.
>
> We've talked about this before without reaching consensus. Would WG
> members support Richard's suggested changes on normatively
> recommending the use of text/plain errors?
>
> thanks, .greg
>
>
Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 20:52:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:49 GMT