W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: Advanced Status Reporting and XML vs HTML

From: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:38:50 -0500
Message-ID: <3A3FD56A.7D7B55DC@ecal.com>
To: "W3c-Dist-Auth@W3. Org" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>  - response-format should be a comma-separated list of acceptable formats
> for the status-response body.

This feels a lot like Accept:...but, of course, we can't actually use Accept:,
because that would affect what kind of responses come back on success.  Do we
want an Accept-Error:, maybe?

As for the user-text option...is it really that important to be able to turn
off the user text? In probably over 90% of the cases, you're going to want to
be able to present an error message to the user (or else log something, if
you're a robot), and that user text might have extra explanatory information
that couldn't be expressed in the standard machine-readable part.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |There are many intelligent species in the    |
|francis@ecal.com|cosmos. All are owned by cats.               |
\==============================================================/
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2000 16:34:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:55 GMT