W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2001

Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:04:32 -0400
Message-Id: <200107182004.QAA15133@mail3.magma.ca>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
CC: David Crowley <dcrowley@scitegic.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Mark,

7/18/2001 3:36:24 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com> wrote:

>
>
>Agree - 500 is a hint that HTTP implementations will believe they can
>act authoritatively upon. It's misleading; an HTTP server error is
>not the same as a SOAP server error.

A SOAP server error *may* be different than an HTTP server error (I'll refrain from giving my opinion here), but the issue 
is how that error should be communicated.  As SOAP/HTTP reuses HTTP's application semantics (see the charter 8-), 
and HTTP has semantics for communicating errors of this type (5xx).

Now, if we decide that a SOAP error is different than an HTTP error, I think the question should be *not* about 200 
versus 500, but about 500 versus a new 5xx error code, e.g. 506 (SOAP Fault).

My opinion; 500 is good enough, but 506 is probably cleaner.  I can live with either.

Note that I haven't checked to see if 506 is already taken.

MB
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 16:04:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:02 GMT