- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:44:02 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 19/06/12 15:36, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > 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, +1 > primarily due to: > > * A lack of significant implementer experience with one particular > format of error bodies > * A lack of clear community consensus * error pages generated by web containers may not easily be under application control, being shared amongst contained apps * organisations like to present their image carefully on errors - c.f. github's 404 page or twitter which has a search bar. > 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? I am not convinced there is a single, "right" answer. > > Lee > Andy
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 14:44:32 UTC