W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > May 2005

RE: HTTP Error code for faults (part3, sec 3.7)

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 20:44:02 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A5079E99C5@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Thank you for your comment - we tracked this as a Last Call comment LC111 [1].  The Working Group agreed to add "The fault definition SHOULD NOT go against the definition of the HTTP error codes, see RFC 3205."

If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this satisfies your concern.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC111

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yves Lafon
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 4:32 AM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: HTTP Error code for faults (part3, sec 3.7)
> 
> 3.7.1 says:
> <<<
> For every Interface Fault component contained in an Interface
> component,
> an HTTP error code MAY be defined. It represents the error code that
> will
> be used by the service in case the fault needs to be returned.
> >>>
> 
> Would it be possible to add that fault definition SHOULD NOT go
> against
> the definition of the HTTP error codes?
> Ie: you may specify returning an error code using 4xx if the error is
> in
> the HTTP request, a 5xx error for a "server-side" error during the
> processing of the request, and preclude the use of 3xx for faults?
> Or reference RFC 3205 Section 8 [1].
> Thanks,
> 
> [1] http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3205.txt
> 
> --
> Yves Lafon - W3C
> "Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 03:44:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:31 GMT