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: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 08:30:57 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0861839F@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>


Marc,

Thanks for writing this up--only a few comments below...

><proposed>
>Table 17 details the transitions that take place when a 
>requesting SOAP 
>node receives an HTTP status line and response header. <new>For some 
>status codes there are two possible next states: Fail and 
>Sending+Receiving. In these cases the transition is dependent on the 
>media type of the response. If the media type does not correspond to a 
>SOAP message the next state is Fail. If the media type 
>corresponds to a 
>SOAP message the next state is Sending+Receiving.</new>
...
></proposed>

The only comment here is similar to what I suggested to Herve which is
that we should 
express it in terms of SOAP messages rather than the content type:

<ProposedByMarc>
In these cases the transition is dependent on the media type of the
response. If the media type does not correspond to a SOAP message the
next state is Fail. If the media type corresponds to a SOAP message the
next state is Sending+Receiving.
</ProposedByMarc>

<ProposedFriendlyAmmendment>
In these cases the transition is dependent on whether a SOAP message is
present in the HTTP response. If a SOAP message is present, the next
state is "Sending+Receiving"; otherwise the next state is "Fail".
</ProposedFriendlyAmmendment>

><proposed>
>Indicates a problem with the received request message.
></proposed>

Ok

><proposed>
>Indicates a server problem or a problem with the received request 
>message.
></proposed>

ok

>Question: should we add Sending+Receiving as a possible next state for 
>any of the other failure oriented status codes in table 17 ?

I think it is fine as is as the other status codes are already described
by HTTP.

Henrik
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 11:30:59 GMT

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