- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:49:13 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Sep 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> When we return error message their often quite verbose, and not >> appropriate to fit in a status line. The longest recommended reason >> phrase is 4 words long. > > Agreed. I was working on the assumption that the http status message often wouldn't include the full error, but a text summary of it. > 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. > > 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. Agreed (especially abotu json being easier). But I think we're past the point of standardizing on any of these more-useful formats, so my inclination was to not have any normative language regarding the response body format. .greg
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 13:52:23 UTC