- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:28:27 +0000
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:36:36 -0500, Kendall Clark wrote: > > > On Jan 10, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > >Other than what? I am just reading the spec and making an > >interpretation. I'm not advocating a design change. > > I believe that changing must to should changes the design. > > One easy way to solve this: if the WG agrees with you and wants > should, I'll change it immediately. The problem is we are the only > ones who seem to care about this, and I don't agree with you. I care, but I dont totally understand the issues (I'm WSDL illiterate). I want to be able to send back any reasonable HTTP code for uncommon conditions (eg. server segfaults, out of memory), but as far as I can see you both think that should be OK. However, apache returns 500 server errors when something internal goes wrong, and as my main HTTP mechanism is apache modules its out of my to control to return a non SPARQL 500 if something really bad goes wrong. OTOH I could argue that at that stage its just not a SPARQL service, as its not capable of processing anything at all. - Steve
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 10:33:43 UTC