W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Returning HTTP codes with HTML descriptions.

From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 00:20:21 +0100
Message-ID: <50945535.1060704@w3.org>
To: Andrei Sambra <andrei@fcns.eu>
CC: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 11/03/2012 12:11 AM, Andrei Sambra wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 06:58 PM, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
>> On 11/02/2012 09:45 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
>>> hello.
>>> On Nov 2, 2012, at 12:54, "Andrei Sambra" <andrei@fcns.eu
>>> <mailto:andrei@fcns.eu>> wrote:
>>>> For example, applications may not "speak" LDP at start (i.e. misusing
>>>> REST verbs), thus resulting in '405 Method Not Allowed' errors. It
>>>> would
>>>> be nice to have some HTML describing what they did wrong.
>>> instead of just using HTML, i suggest to have a look at
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-problem-01 and see how
>>> well it would fit. i think pretty good. the next version is supposed to
>>> add XML support (i'm working on a schema).
>> There are some interesting ideas in this spec, but in our case, the
>> client already understands RDF, so I don't see why we would return
>> anything but RDF for "problem details".
> I'm fine with returning RDF too. The reason why I suggested HTML was to
> serve as a simple debugging message (a warning) for the developers
> trying to use the LD platform. The way I see it in this case, RDF would
> serve a better purpose if these messages were to change frequently,
> though I don't really have a use case for this in my mind right now.

If a DELETE on an LDPC fails because of one of the underlying LDPRs,
I'd like to know which one, potentially to make a choice based on this

As my application is already supposed to understand RDF somehow, RDF
just makes sense to express this information.

If the information is for the "developers trying to use the LD
platform" then I believe that TURTLE will do it better than HTML

The same reasoning apply to all the other cases.

> It would be nice to have a system like this in place for
> interoperability tests, since I believe many of us are eager to start
> implementing stuff. :-)

I agree, and this makes a case for a machine-readable format. I'm
planning to make that part of my proposal re: testing.


> Andrei
>> Alexandre.
>>> cheers,
>>> dret.
Received on Friday, 2 November 2012 23:20:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:33 UTC