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

Re: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) 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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT