- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:22:39 +0200
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, Florian Stegmaier <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>, "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Le 25/10/2011 16:16, Yves Lafon a écrit : > On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Thierry MICHEL wrote: > >> Yves, >> >> We have discussed this issue during the MAWG telecon. >> >> >> These status code are not on the HTTP level, but on a layer on top of it. >> >> As these are on different layers, we have decided to remove the >> wording and references to HTTP to avoid any confusion. >> >> Therefore the "4.7 API Status Codes" section >> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/API10/CR/Overview.html#api-status-codes >> >> >> The section does not mentions HTTP nor refers to it. >> The intro paragraph now says: >> >> [This section introduces a set of status codes for the defined API to >> indicate the system behavior. As described in section 4.4, the status >> code is returned as one of the attributes of the MediaAnnotation >> object returned by a method call to the API. These status codes are >> used on the API level, and applied to either client side or server >> side implementations.] >> >> >> If you see a coincidence between the Numerical Code and the HTTP staus >> code, it is only a coincidence ;-) > > Well, then why choosing the 2xx 4xx 5xx convention for > success/client-side error/server-side errors ? as there is already a well know semantic. And also if we change these codes now, we should probably go for a third Last Call ..., and implementations already use these. As the link to HTTP is > removed, it would probably be a good thing to document how to extend > those codes. Apart from that, the decoupling changes goes in the right > direction, yes. OK > > Also, in the previous email exchange [1], it was hinted that there was a > tunnelling over HTTP in the implementation of this specification, while > the specification itself doesn't call for this, so I hope that > implementation won't forget the 'Web' aspect while implementing that API. Florian or Werner could you respond to this ? > Thanks, > > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Oct/0043.html > > >
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 15:23:02 UTC