W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 13:57:24 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D06F995B2@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Sorry for jumping in here and maybe I am missing something but I think
we may be able to  define when a fault is a fault without compromising
the integrity of our spec (maybe this according to Noah [1] is having
our cake and eating it too). Would it not work to say the following:

A) A SOAP processing failure results in the generation of a SOAP fault
[2]

B) An HTTP processing failure results in the generation of an HTTP
status code describing the failure [3]

C) The SOAP binding to HTTP defines the mapping between SOAP faults and
HTTP status codes   (the TBTF is currently discussing issue 196 [4]
which is related)

If any of these statements are not true then we have a broken
implementation.

>My view would be that if faultHint is really only a hint, then we
>shouldn't have it.  But this is all tied up in the resolution of 192,
>which I believe is waiting for the group to decide which of Noah's
>suggestions[1] it wants to proceed with.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Mar/0364.html
[2]
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/03/23/soap12-part1-1.37.html#procsoapm
sgs
[3] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10
[4] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x196
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2002 16:58:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT