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

Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long)

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:15:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203281615.LAA19130@markbaker.ca>
To: ylafon@w3.org (Yves Lafon)
Cc: highland.m.mountain@intel.com (Mountain Highland M), PMAppleton@bemis.com ('Appleton Pete M'), xml-dist-app@w3.org
> It may be valid to say that with one HTTP binding, 2xx will mean that it's
> not a fault and the purchase is ok (well in the envelope, you may also
> have "modifiers" to the success, like "ok but delayed").

I'd create new HTTP response codes to communicate that, if the
meaning was generic to all resources such as that one appears to be
(and which 201 may already handle).

> But it can be wrong for another HTTP binding. In any case, your proxy will
> know if the P.O is ok only by processing the envelope.

Well, the response might just be for human consumption, such as
"sorry, we cannot accept your order at this time".  HTTP needs to be
able to signal the fault independant of the content, which is what
the response codes are for.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 11:10:20 GMT

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