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.

Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 13:30:12 UTC

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