- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 18:40:34 +0100
- To: Richard Newman <rnewman@twinql.com>
- Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Richard, On 4 Oct 2010, at 17:33, Richard Newman wrote: >>> There can be no justification for requiring a separate parser just >>> for error reporting. > > In that case, all errors must be reported primarily using protocol > mechanisms — HTTP error codes and headers, and SOAP faults — and > only secondarily through any response body. Are you seriously suggesting that the protocol should define that error messages be communicated in JSON or Turtle or something else that requires a parser other than an XML parser? If so, then can you give me an example of an existing SPARQL client that parses error messages but does not parse successful responses? And if that is not the case, then what is the closest equivalent in another, similar, protocol? Thanks, Richard
Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 17:41:09 UTC