- From: Christophe Jolif <cjolif@ilog.fr>
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 11:29:19 +0200
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- CC: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Jim Ley wrote: > > "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc> >> In IE you can at least test for .status == 200 to test if things >> worked out ok. Even though the statuscode for various errors seem to >> be weird to say the least, at least they are different from the >> success codes. >> >> I actually think this is how we should do errorhandling for now since >> that should work with most existing content. > > I would be content with this, but no-one else appeared to be in Oslo. > >> If we do go to state 4 then things will look almost exactly like a >> successful response. The only difference is that .responseXML will be >> null, but that is already the case for a lot of consumers that send >> non-xml data. > > I'd sort of disagree, the problem will manifest itself by the result not > being parseable as expected, as you say a null XML document is a > perfectly fine indicator of failure for XML expecting people - those > sending json will get a script error, those getting some other > structured format won't be able to parse it etc. Even though you can always imagine to find solution to workaround it. I think it is a bad idea to go to 4 without having a clear knowledge of what the status really is (successful or erroneous). Indeed bad or null XML can be due to a bug on the server, not necessarily a network error! -- Christophe
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2006 09:28:21 UTC