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

Re: Fault HTTP status 500

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 16:38:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200110092038.QAA24374@markbaker.ca>
To: peter.hendry@capeclear.com (Pete Hendry)
Cc: mnot@mnot.net (Mark Nottingham), xml-dist-app@w3.org
> I understand what you mean and, after following the links on a previous post about the previous threads on this subject,
> I'm afraid I fall into the 200 camp. I don't think HTTP should be an integral part of SOAP.

This is all covered in the thread I pointed out.  I encourage you to read it
in its entirety.

> I think the previous thread said it all, there are 2 distinct camps in this argument and there's not much point in
> rehashing it.

There are two camps, because there are two different uses of SOAP over HTTP.  One use
inherits HTTP's application semantics (because it is an application protocol, not
a transport protocol as you have said), and the other doesn't; it uses it as tunnel
over which to carry other protocols.

Something I don't believe that has been said in this discussion, is that for the
tunnel camp, it probably doesn't matter so much which response code will be used
because HTTP is abstracted away.  But for the semantic-inheritance camp, it is critical.
Therefore, not using 200 is probably the best design decision if a single SOAP/HTTP
binding is to be created.

MB
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 16:35:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT