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

Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:53:00 -0500
Message-ID: <3CA3749C.8050702@sun.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

>>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 14:54:01 GMT

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