W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > June 2002

another issue

From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 15:06:57 -0700
To: xmlp-comments@w3.org, ylafon@w3.org
Cc: frystyk@microsoft.com, "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "David Orchard" <david.orchard@bea.com>, distobj@acm.org, highland.m.mountain@intel.com, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OF93B99DEF.0CE16507-ON88256BD0.00791B39@boulder.ibm.com>

Yves, pls capture the following issue in the LC issues list. I believe that
it stems from an earlier action item that did not make it into the spec in
time. It was submitted by Henrik, at the end of our GETF work.

From [2], this should be added to section [4]:

Table 11 refers to some but not all of the existing HTTP/1.1 status
codes (see RFC 2616). In addition to these status codes, HTTP provides
an open-ended mechanism for supporting status codes defined by HTTP
extensions (see RFC 2817 for a registration mechanism for new status
codes). HTTP status codes are divided into status code classes as
described in RFC 2616, section 6.1.1. The SOAP HTTP binding follows the
rules of any HTTP application which means that an implementation of the
SOAP HTTP binding must understand the class of any status code, as
indicated by the first digit, and treat any unrecognized response as
being equivalent to the x00 status code of that class, with the
exception that an unrecognized response must not be cached.

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002May/0107.html

David C. Fallside, IBM
Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
Int  Ph: 544.9665
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 18:08:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:58 UTC