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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:05:55 -0700
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010719090550.A7773@mnot.net>

How does Expect help in this situation?


On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 10:26:35AM -0700, Mark Baker wrote:
> Oops, hit send prematurely.  I'll just respond to the one point I missed.
> 
> 7/19/2001 3:20:30 AM, christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> wrote:
> 
> >Mark,
> >
> >Okay, if we take this approach (reuse application semantics)
> >to its fullest interpretation, then yes, SOAP Server.* faults
> >would be reported using 500 and possibly MustUnderstand.*
> >faults (of course, depending upon your perspective, either
> >the client is at fault for including a header that the server
> >doesn't understand or the server is at fault for not understanding
> >the header;-).
> 
> Yah, I got a headache over this one at first too until I looked at the Expect feature of HTTP 1.1.  Then all was made 
> clear; it is within the capabilities of the client to resubmit the request without mustUnderstand="1".  The server doesn't 
> have a choice.
> 
> MB
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 17:51:38 GMT

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