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

Re: New issue: HTTP binding/status code

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:10:55 +0100
Message-ID: <3C9B659F.F1FCE85C@crf.canon.fr>
To: "Williams Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
So you mean it's up to the implementation to use the appropriate status code,
depending on the circumstances?

Jean-Jacques.

"Williams, Stuart" wrote:

> Jean Jacques,
>
> Since I put the "??" strings there... I'll fess up.
>
> They are there because some judegment needs to be applied :-)
>
> They are certainly *NOT* intended to suggest that status code will do.
>
> They are there as a request for input - "What should these codes be?" The
> ednote that follows [1] also indicates that the intent was to use status
> codes in manner that was consistent with the resolution of issue 12 (which
> was resolved against a very different narrative).
>
> The second table is intended to enumerate all top level SOAP Faults and the
> HTTP status codes to be used when transferring such a fault in an HTTP
> response.
>
> Incidentally, I think with these tables in place... the "when is a fault a
> fault" question that Mark Baker asks does not arise... the binding requires
> that status codes consistent with the fault being carried are used and the
> quoted fault use-case is *not* supported... without further encapsulation of
> the quoted fault within the message (ie. a fault carried in a 200 is an
> implementation error - a binding that did this would fail a conformance
> test).
>
> Stuart
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> > Sent: 22 March 2002 13:43
> > To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: New issue: HTTP binding/status code
> >
> >
> > I would like to raise the following issue: two tables[1,2] in the
> > HTTP binding contain the strings "??" and "???". The meaning of
> > these characters is ambiguous: it could either mean "any status
> > code is valid", or "we haven't though about this problem yet;
> > work in progress". Also, it is not clear whether only a certain
> > subset of the HTTP status code is acceptable, instead of all
> > possible HTTP status code.
> >
> > Jean-Jacques.
> >
> > [1] 7.4.1.2.1 "Receiving State" table
> > [2] 7.4.1.2.3 "Responding State SOAP Faults" table
> >
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 12:40:23 GMT

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