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

RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:46:26 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D06F98EB7@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Cc: <distobj@acm.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

>I agree. Specifically, most likely a bug at the other end of the
>connection.  I hope the binding spec is clear that fault's SHOULD 
>only be sent in responses marked 500 (or maybe 5XX).

Absolutely - it's a buggy implementation. For some reason it wasn't
quite clear but the editor's are aware of this.

>>> My bottom line is a SOAP Fault is a SOAP Fault regardless of
>>> the binding. The faulthint property is just that, a hint.
>...as you say, if this buggy message is received, and your
>
>binding implementation chooses not to reject it outright,
>then I agree that it MUST be treated as a fault per the
>SOAP processing rules.

I think we have to be careful not to encourage "smart" implementations
and be very crisp on that we see it as a buggy implementation. The Web
has very bad experience with HTTP applications that try to be smart with
respect to content types, URI rewriting, content modifications etc. The
problem is that after some time, the smartness turns into a serious
interoperability problem because people sort of start to rely on it in
some cases but not in others. I would strongly encourage us to stay away
from promoting this as much as possible.

Henrik
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 14:46:58 GMT

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