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

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

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 21:31:52 -0400
Message-ID: <3B578A08.C688A02A@east.Sun.COM>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
grok.

Thanks,

Chris

Mark Baker wrote:
> 
> 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 21:31:54 GMT

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