Re: Adressing more error cases ?

Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu> wrote on 09/28/2012 
10:41:59 AM:

> From: Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 09/28/2012 10:43 AM
> Subject: Adressing more error cases ?
> 
> Hi.
> 
> I have the impression that the current status of the editor's draft
> mainly tells how to perform right, but not so much what to do in other
> cases.
> 
> For instance, I see very few mentions of HTTP error codes.
> 
> Do we intend to explicitely cover error conditions like insufficient
> privileges or wrong formats, or incorrect syntax for methods
> invocations, or is it already covered by existing specs ?
> 
> Just wondering if this is intentionally missing as out of scope or needs
> to be addressed.
> 
The intent of the submission was to add in explicit status codes when it 
is not obvious.  So there are some indicated and I believe that we should 
follow this (in other words don't repeat HTTP spec).  I'm fine with there 
being an issue opened but I can't see any cases in current draft that need 
clarity.  Perhaps if the issue was clearly in an area that was lacking or 
a use case that wasn't supported, that would help.

> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Olivier BERGER 
> http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8
> Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF
> Institut Mines-Telecom, Telecom SudParis, Evry (France)
> 
> 


Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> 
http://open-services.net

Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 22:13:14 UTC