- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:19:05 -0500
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Jan 6, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > Mine is that the protocol document says a QueryRequestRefused > *must* be returned and that "*must*" is an absolute requirement > (using RFC2119 terminolgy). That leaves no room to return another > status code and claim to be an implementation of the SPARQL interface. There are conditions under which that is the *WSDL fault* to return. which has nothing whatever to do with any HTTP status code that isn't *serializing* a fault. RFC 2119 terminology doesn't control WSDL or its interaction with the HTTP spec. >> If you want a statement to that effect in the document, I drafted >> one in my previous message. You reject it because you think it >> contradicts "intended interaction". But it doesn't. > > If that is: > > "A SPARQL Protocol service may employ the full range of HTTP status > codes consistent with the usage of QueryRequestRefused and > MalformedQuery as describe in section 2.1.4." Nope, that wasn't an offer, for reasons I explained clearly. (Why are we singling out HTTP status codes? Why not HTTP headers too?) Cheers, Kendall
Received on Friday, 6 January 2006 19:19:12 UTC