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

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

From: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:31:25 -0400
Message-ID: <3B56FD4D.66CC7975@zolera.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> A SOAP fault is as much "application data" as an HTML document saying
> "Sorry, unexpected server error, try back
> later" when carried on a 500.  i.e. it's not application data, at least not
> by any definition of it that I'd use.

They are different because the SOAP fault could, for example, indicate
that a specific mustUnderstand element isn't understood, and the sender
knows how to fix it.  For an HTTP 500, there's no semantic other than
"didn't work." As a result, the HTTP infrastructure can do all sorts of
things.  (I particularly like SGI; try http://www.sgi.com/no-such-file a
couple of times.)

> I'll ask this again, because it's an important question; if we're doing
> tunnelling, where are the application semantics
> defined?

Then I guess you'll have to point me to a definition of application
semantics, becuase I don't understand.

Zolera Systems, Your Key to Online Integrity
Securing Web services: XML, SOAP, Signatures, Encryption
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 11:31:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:14 UTC