- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:32:27 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Masayasu Ishikawa'" <mimasa@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
FWIW: my intuition is that one may want somewhat different error handling philosphies for protocols that present information to a user than for those that are strictly machine-to-machine. Within limits, users are capable of exercising a sort of open-ended judgement that software applications typically don't. I am not making the simplistic assumption that therefore forgiving protocols such as HTML are necessarily appropriate to interactive applications, or that one should never use the "if you don't understand it skip it" model for machine-2-machine. I'm just suggesting that the presence of a human is a factor to consider, and that perhaps that thought might (or might not) add some nuance to a TAG error handling finding. I think one needs to be particularly careful with protocols that are used in both contexts, as both SOAP and REST models do with HTTP. I was reminded of this by the recent uproar over the Verisign site-finder service, which effectively turned a 404 into an HTML page with information about alternate web sites. Well, whatever you think about SF's other merits (and I don't think we should open that debate here), I'd argue that the relatively informal response they give is at best useful to a human reader, but completely inappropriate to either a SOAP application, or some other application doing a GET for machine-readable information. So, I think that's an example that highlights how one can be tempted to use error handling strategies or guidelines in one context that don't work in the other, particularly in siutations where the same protocol is used for both interactive and machine-to-machine purposes. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 24 October 2003 16:35:21 UTC