- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:02:36 +0000
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:38:38AM -0500, Kendall Clark wrote: > >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. > > I do. I don't think Andy does because of the "must" and the broad way > he reads "refuses". But I've proposed text to Andy that he seems to > favor, so we'll see how that goes. > > My other suggestion was just to drop this WSDL fault completely. I've > convinced myself that it's pretty useless and unnecessary. That seems sensible to me, it's not clear what a generic WSDL handling thing would make of it anyway. - Steve
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 16:02:49 UTC