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

Re: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, discrepancies

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:05:17 -0400
Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
To: "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Message-Id: <C946545D-CA78-11D6-9862-0003937568DC@sun.com>

On Tuesday, Sep 17, 2002, at 09:29 US/Eastern, Herve Ruellan wrote:

> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>>> An alternative proposal is to change table 23 such that env:Sender 
>>> is  mapped to a HTTP 500 status code. This would then map cleanly 
>>> with the  existing table 17. This would have the added advantage of 
>>> allowing us  to remove table 23 since env:Sender is the only fault 
>>> not currently  mapped to a 500 status code.
>> Hmm, I think we have the same problem regardless of the HTTP status
>> code. It may not be too bad to do what Herve suggests, maybe 
>> expressing
>> it in terms of SOAP messages rather than the content type:
> I agree. This doesn't appear in table 20 or table 23, but a responding 
> SOAP node may return a 500 Status Code without any SOAP fault in it.
True, but the description for 500 already says "Indicates that the 
response message contained in the following HTTP response entity body 
may contain a SOAP fault." Note the "may". Why bother to change the 
entry for 400 when the 500 entry already does what we want ?

If we change the entry for 400, do we also need to do so for any of the 
other entries in table 17 ? All of them ?


Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 16:05:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:21 UTC