- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:43:24 +0000
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- CC: dawg comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Kendall Clark wrote: > The WG discussed this issue and declined to specify any format for > describing error messages. As far as clients being unable to "reliably > extract an error message", I can only reiterate that in the HTTP case, > for example, the WSDL fault is serialized by an HTTP status code (400 > for MalformedQuery and 500 for QueryRequestRefused) and the (optional) > fault-details part of the WSDL fault may be included in the body of the > HTTP request, which I believe to be reliably extractable. > > Please let us know whether this sufficiently addresses yr comments? Yes, thats fine. I still think that standardising error messages/codes would be a good thing to do, but accept that it's not essential for the first spec, and *could* given sufficient implementation experience, be achieved at a later date. Cheers, L. -- Home: http://www.ldodds.com | "Simplicity is the ultimate Blog: http://www.ldodds.com/blog | sophistication" -- Leonardo da Vinci
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2006 14:43:56 UTC