Re: RC-2 resolution

Good - shame it's too early to point to it really - switching from text/plain to json is likely to be a bit painful.

- Steve

On 2012-10-02, at 21:24, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> Note the following Internet Draft:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-problem-01
> 
> Indicating Details of Problems to Machines in HTTP
> draft-nottingham-http-problem-01
>  Expires: March 17, 2013
> 
> i.e. this area, in general, is emerging.
> 
> 	Andy
> 
> 
> On 02/10/12 21:21, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> I talked to Greg, and we looked more closely at Richard's latest
>> suggestion. In it, he includes a "minimal option":
>> 
>> "[T]he minimal option would be to encourage text/plain error messages by providing*only*  text/plain examples (currently there's one for text/plain and one for HTML)"
>> 
>> 
>> Given the lack of experience and consensus, Greg and I feel that Richard's suggestion here is acceptable, and we plan to modify the protocol editor's draft accordingly. Please speak up if you're not happy with this resolution.
>> 
>> Also, please take a look at this draft response which I'd propose we
>> send to Richard:
>> 
>> """
>> After several more discussions, it remains clear that we still have a lack of consensus on this topic and given our group's dwindling timeline, we have no further time to devote to this issue. To that end, we've removed the examples that encouraged using the HTTP status message. We've also adopted your "minimal option", and adjusted the error examples to all use text/plain responses.
>> 
>> Please let us know if this satisfactorily addresses your comments.
>> 
>> thanks,
>> Lee
>> On behalf of the SPARQL WG
>> """
>> 
>> 
>> Lee
>> 
> 

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
+44 7854 417 874  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 12:25:41 UTC