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

Re: Issue #12: HTTP Status Codes 500 v 200

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:30:06 -0400
Message-ID: <3B25001E.945201DF@acm.org>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> There is no pushing things around. We are specifically talking about
> HTTP and SOAP together. The HTTP binding is silent about what happens
> when using other bindings and the use of HTTP status codes is completely
> orthogonal to this.

Thanks Henrik.  You're right, mostly. 8-)  Towards the end of the
discussion though, I found myself wondering if the current types of SOAP
faults were sufficient.  HTTP redirection would be a concept that would
be difficult to hide, don't you think?  What if a SOAP message is sent
over HTTP, and the resource has temporarily moved?  RFC 2616 sec 10.3.3
(response status 302) says that for a POST, that the user agent MUST NOT
do an automatic redirect, so that suggests to me that the client should
know what's going on.

MB
Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 13:30:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT