- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:26:23 -0500
- To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 07:39:41AM -0800, Martin Gudgin wrote: > Are you saying that there should be an extra statement along the lines > of > > "All messages that have a single SOAP Fault EII as the only child EII of > the SOAP Body are SOAP fault messages." > > ? No, the exact opposite; that there's absolutely no problem with the spec if you interpret it as its currently written. > > But when using the HTTP binding, I need only return the fault via an > > HTTP 2xx response to distinguish it from a fault returned via a HTTP > > 4xx or 5xx response, to accomplish that task. > > I don't think that works due to me reasons given earlier in this thread. > But I think you might be saying there's a bug in the HTTP binding. That > it should use 200 OK even for SOAP Fault messages. I'm not sure I'd > argue with that... That was one of the monster issues in front of the WG, in fact. It was also resolved to my liking, and totally consistent with the position I've held during this discussion. See; http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x12 Also, this is the when-is-a-fault-a-fault issue, which was also resolved to my liking with the following proposal; "update the binding framework to state that each binding should declare that the authoritative determinant of whether a message is a fault or not should be the underlying protocol" http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x192 Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Saturday, 19 March 2005 06:26:41 UTC