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: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:20:55 -0400
Message-Id: <200107191920.PAA28620@mail3.magma.ca>
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>, christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
7/19/2001 2:29:26 PM, Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com> wrote:

>> The way I'm thinking presently is that a we provide that a SOAPFault
>> MAY be carried on an HTTP 500, but this is NOT a requirement
>> as is currently specified in 1.1 and 1.2WD.
>Horrible.  Let's pick one place and tell folks to stick it there.  If we
>have to count angels on pins first, so be it.

Yep.  I could *almost* see saying both (200 if tunnelling, 400/500 if not), except that the typical developer won't know 
the difference, so that wouldn't be very helpful for interoperability.

What about two bindings?  One for respecting HTTP's semantics, and the other for abusing them. 8-)

Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 15:21:01 UTC

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