- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:42:17 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 09:21:54 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote: > > On 13:29, Mon 24 Oct 05, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > > == "select-refused" > > > > Not sure why the query is to be refused. > > > > I'd return a 400 (BAD REQUEST) if query is sent that the (mythical) service > > description had said it was not supported in some way (e.g. described > > dataset but the service only has a fixed dataset). It is not a server > > error if the client sends a request the server has said it can't handle. > > This is *really* a comment against the protocol spec, isn't it? One I've > heard from and discussed with Steve a long time ago (well, relatively > speaking), and one we discussed during the telcon on IRC last week. > > I won't repeat that discussion (for the 3rd time) here; suffice to say, for > now, I'm not convinced. The 5xx error series is *not* for server "errors" > only. The first sentence of 10.5 Server Error 5xx says, quite plainly, > "Response status codes beginning with the digit "5" indicate cases in which > the server is aware that it has erred or is incapable of performing the > request." I take "unwilling" to be a special case of "incapable". While the > spec presently says QueryRequestRefused is to be bound to 500, I'd be happy > with it returning 501. 501 is more specific, and so seems better to me. - Steve
Received on Monday, 24 October 2005 13:42:44 UTC