- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 21:20:30 -0800
- 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 UTC