- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:02:32 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Jan 29, 2006, at 11:45 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: >> Is there any reason to state the fault propagation rule redundantly? > > I'm having trouble seeing the redundancy; where does it already say > that Out Message must not be returned in the case of syntax errors? The spec says that in the case of a syntax error, the MalformedQuery fault should be returned. If this (or any other) fault is returned, no Out Message can be returned, by the WSDL 2.0 fault propagation rule our spec uses. Thus, if you return MalformedQuery, you cannot return an Out Message. That's what it says by saying that we're using Fault Replaces Message fault propagation rule. I guess it's more accurate to say that it implies this prohibition rather than explicitly states it. But isn't that editorial rather than substantive? >> At any rate, in 1.108 I've updated this section in response to this >> discussion. Is the relevant language insufficient as it stands? MalformedQuery When a SPARQL query string is not a legal sequence of characters in the language defined by the SPARQL grammar, this fault message should be returned. See 2.1.4 query Fault Messages for SPARQL Protocol fault propagation rules. In the case of HTTP bindings, an HTTP 2xx status code must not be returned. Cheers, Kendall -- You're part of the human race All of the stars and the outer space Part of the system again
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 05:02:40 UTC