Re: Adressing more error cases ?

On 01/10/12 23:12, Steve K Speicher wrote:
> Olivier Berger <> wrote on 09/28/2012
> 10:41:59 AM:
>> From: Olivier Berger <>
>> To:,
>> 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.

There ought to be a common approach - either rely on the HTTP spec or 
put in enough text to make the LDP doc stand on its own.

At the moment, status codes are relying on the HTTP spec but the 
majority of the document (e.g. section 4) contains text so that reader 
does not need to look at the RFC.


>> Thanks in advance.
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> Olivier BERGER
>> - 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 ->

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 08:25:50 UTC