- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:36:59 -0400
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
One of our open comments is RC-2: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Sep/0002.html To summarize, this was a comment from before we moved the SPARQL Protocol away from WSDL. In this comment, Richard Cyganiak was asking that we consider standardizing the format of fault message bodies -- he suggested at the time using the XML serialization based on the WSDL for malformed queries and query request refused. His message sparked a long discussion thread, that included proponents of plain text error reporting, of content negotiation, and of leaving the format of error message bodies underspecified. There was no consensus. We as a working group have not spent time on the issue, but ought to discuss it via email or on a call, before replying to the message. Greg and I have discussed this and believe that the format of error message bodies should remain underspecified, primarily due to: * A lack of significant implementer experience with one particular format of error bodies * A lack of clear community consensus We also think that better HTTP status messages would help, and we'll update the examples in protocol to illustrate this. (Though this won't be any sort of conformance requirement.) What do you think? Lee
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 14:37:31 UTC