- From: Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz@t-code.pl>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:27:07 +0200
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>
I think it will make sense if the identifier was communicated to the client in response header or body. By doing so the server could communicate various errors for a single HTTP status code. For example status code 403 could be returned for numerous reasons in an API but giving the possible statuses identifiers doesn't help the client understand why a particular request failed. On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: > > Gregg Kellogg > gregg@greggkellogg.net > > On Jul 16, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: > >> This is closely related to the call for consensus on ISSUE-27 [1] I just >> sent out a minute ago (yeah, I should have combined these two [2]). >> >> The proposals is to document in the specification how errors or possible >> statuses in general can be given an identifier (a IRI) that can then be >> directly reused in responses so that clients can recognize these >> states/errors and automatically recover in certain cases. > > +0 > >> This serves as a call for consensus on the proposed solution. Before I >> proceed with marking the issue as resolved and implementing the changes in >> the spec, I would like to ask if anyone has any concerns or objections >> against this proposal. >> >> Please submit your comments by Wednesday, July 23rd. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Markus >> >> >> [1] https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/27 >> [2] https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/39 >> >> >> -- >> Markus Lanthaler >> @markuslanthaler >> >> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 18:28:24 UTC