- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:56:18 -0500
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Jan 11, 2006, at 10:39 AM, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > The one I have difficulty is how a security problem (403) is not a > refusal by the service. Overloading overloading overloading overloading. Our WSDL serializes *no* fault with 403. Thus, any 403 returned is NOT a WSDL fault. It *cannot* be a WSDL fault. QueryRequestRefused *is* a WSDL fault. Thus 403 cannot be a refusal by the service. Yr systematically confusing situations where natural language speakers might use the English verb "to refuse" with situations where QueryRequestRefused is being returned as a WSDL fault. This is at least the third time I've explained this, Andy, and yet you accuse me in private email of "avoiding concrete examples". -sigh- HTTP 403 *cannot* be a WSDL-refusal by the WSDL service *per definitionem* because the *only* way to refuse *in the WSDFL fault sense* is to return 500. If a service returns 403, it hasn't refused in the sense of QueryRequestRefused or of WSDL, which is the only sense that matters. Can you or someone else use the English verb "to refuse" to describe what it has done? Of course, but that doesn't make it a WSDL fault. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 16:02:02 UTC