- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:53:00 -0500
- 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 UTC