- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 16:31:47 +0100
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On 1 Oct 2010, at 21:24, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: >> 1. To state in the HTTP binding that clients SHOULD use the XML >> fault message format when reporting faults. > > It may be polite to still have two, one for SOAP interfaces, which > have some standard tooling and contracts, etc. I'm just concerned about the HTTP bindings. I don't really see the SOAP bindings used out there in the wild; my clients certainly don't support them, and I had no user requests for SOAP support. > I expect your principle > issue is with the free-form beat poetry style of the rest bindings. My issue is with two things: 1. The current spec says: “Use this HTTP status code, everything else is up to you.” It should say: “You SHOULD report the error message this way.” 2. The current spec has an example that shows the error message embedded in HTML in a way that it can't be gotten out by a client. It should not use such an example. > We'd kind of like to leave room for implementors to innovate Saying that you SHOULD use a certain format leaves enough wiggle room for implementors to innovate, IMO. I think the spec should really communicate one no-brainer way of implementing error reporting, for anyone who really just wants to be conformant without any desire to do fancy innovative stuff. I really want that format to be machine-readable; beyond that I really don't care much. I have no objection against also proposing alternative response formats, as long as one option is clearly highlighted as the “no- brainer” option. > and reply with > our baseline error response plus some structured stuff to say what > line and character caused what sort of error. I'm all for reporting line and column in a structured format if possible, but that would be the cherry on the cake. I'd be sufficiently happy with just the cake. > We'd also like that to > show up in browsers. What if we say that it must appear in a pre with > a particular class? > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml.dtd > "> > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> > <head> > <title>D'oh!</title> > </head> > <body> > <pre class="malformedQueryFault" style="display:none">Parse error > at [5:17], unexpected ' '</pre> Why would you make it display:none? If you use HTML already, then at least make the error message show up in the browser! And RDFa would be better than a magic class name. Best, Richard
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 15:38:53 UTC