Re: Status of comment RC-2

On 25/09/12 12:32, Steve Harris wrote:
>>> I'm also surprised if most toolkits allow you to change the status
>>> >>text.
>> >
>> >All the ones I have used do but, yes, the text is not really of much weight.
>> >
>> >But that's not the proposal as I understand it.
> OK, I think I got the wrong end of the stick.
>
>> >My understanding is that the proposal is to normatively describe a
>> >mechanism for passing back error messages.
>> >
>> >It is not clear what for - as there is no definition of the error
>> >messages its not for a programme to parse out (a json structure would be
>> >easier anyway!) so I can only assume it's for display.  Existing servers (aside from specialied SPARQL endgines:-)  send HTML by default.
> I think at this point display is all we can expect.
>
>> >So I don't see a proposal on the table at this point other than a vague "send text/plain in the body".  I think that is more harm than good to give it any weight.
> Something informative, suggesting that people return text/plain (or whatever is the consensus) seems beneficial, I'm not sure about anything normative.
>
>> >And it mildly conflicts with SPARQL 1.0.
> Yeah, but so does common practice (as I understand it). Totally ignoring the fact that common practice is mildly different from what's written in SPARQL 1.0 doesn't seem ideal either.

It is?  In what way?

Sending plain text has it's own issues.  I had one report that Fuseki 
was generating internal errors because the user saw plain text and 
assumed it was the internal system throwing up an internal fault in 
unsubtle way.  In fact, it was a parse in their query.

	Andy

Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 12:22:18 UTC