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

FW: TBTF: Proposal for issue 196

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 21:20:30 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D06F996AA@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Reposted... Henrik

Problem
-------

This mail is primarily intended for TBTF folks but others are free to
read along. Jean-Jacques brought up the issue that table titled
"Responding State SOAP Faults" [3] in the Mar 23 snapshot [2] contains a
series of ?? where HTTP status codes should be listed:

      Non-fault Response Message          200 OK 
      env:VersionMismatch                 ??  
      env:MustUnderstand                  ??  
      env:DataEncodingUnknown             ??  
      env:Sender                          ??  
      env:Receiver                        ??  
      env:rpc                             ??  
      Other faults                        ?? 

TBTF started discussing this on today's TBTF call but didn't finish so I
took an AI to take it to the list. The proposal below does not
necessarily represent consensus within the TBTF or anywhere else for
that matter.

Discussion
----------

* As we now have sub-fault codes, rpc fault goes away entirely and so do
"other faults".

* I would also think that DataEncodingUnknown should be a sub-fault of
"Sender" [see e] rather than a top-level fault. 

* Personally, I don't think the first "non-fault" entry should be listed
in this table as it is not a SOAP fault and it is described elsewhere in
the binding.

Proposal
--------

As a result of the discussion, I think the table will look like this:

      env:VersionMismatch                 500 [see a] 
      env:MustUnderstand                  500 [see b]  
      env:Sender                          400 [see c]
      env:Receiver                        500 [see d]

[a] Similar to HTTP/1.1's 505 "HTTP Version Not Supported"
[b] Similar to HTTP/1.1's 501 "Not Implemented"
[c] Similar to HTTP/1.1's 400 "Bad Request"
[d] Similar to HTTP/1.1's 500 "Internal Server Error"
[e] Because the sender sends something that the receiver can't accept

Comments?

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x196
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/03/23/soap12-part2-1.46.html
[3]
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/03/23/soap12-part2-1.46.html#http-resp
bindrespond
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 00:20:31 GMT

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