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

Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:59:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203191859.NAA23096@markbaker.ca>
To: henrikn@microsoft.com (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen)
Cc: jacek@systinet.com (Jacek Kopecky), xml-dist-app@w3.org

> IMO, the resolution of this issue [1][2] seems to be very clear on the
> relationship between a SOAP fault and HTTP status codes so I am I not
> sure I understand the discussion about which is a hint and which is not.

As this thread intended to show, I now agree.  Another look at the HTTP
binding showed that it appears to be consistent with my views of how
faults should be recognized, which is also consistent with the
resolution of the issues you cited.

Adding the resolution text from those issues should also help make this
issue clearer to its audience, but it would still be nice to
specifically say "SOAP faults received as part of an HTTP response with
a non-4xx or 5xx status code, should not be treated as faults".  I could
see this one *easily* being missed by implementors.  I wonder how many
SOAP 1.1 implementations get it right?

Certainly something to add to our conformance tests too.

So, issue 192 appears to be down to just my first proposal, to add a
blurb to the binding framework saying that, at the very least, binding
designers should be aware of this issue (what I proposed for 192 was
more specific, but I could live with this).

Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 14:10:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:48 UTC