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 21:17:58 -0400
Message-Id: <200107200117.VAA22831@mail3.magma.ca>
To: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Chris, Mark,

7/19/2001 6:02:43 PM, christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> wrote:

>Yeah, I was puzzled by this as well. The Expect usage has the server
>responding with a 417 Expectation Failed status which is in the
>Client Error range of status codes, not the server range. Therefore, 
>applying that to the mU faulting analogy in SOAP, a 4xx status would 
>seem more suitable than a 500.
>
>So, Mark B, are you suggesting that the mU fault should be reported
>with a 4xx status or are you suggesting something completely different?

That's exactly what I am suggesting, as I described several weeks ago;

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jun/0017.html

>My take is that it is the client that erred in expecting the server
>to support some feature, not the otherway round. 

Right-o.

>Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 
>> How does Expect help in this situation?

Expect has basically identical semantics to mustUnderstand.  The only difference being that mustUnderstand is 
explicitly associated with a header block, whereas Expect isn't associated with anything in particular.

MB
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 21:17:59 GMT

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