- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:04:32 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- CC: David Crowley <dcrowley@scitegic.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Mark, 7/18/2001 3:36:24 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com> wrote: > > >Agree - 500 is a hint that HTTP implementations will believe they can >act authoritatively upon. It's misleading; an HTTP server error is >not the same as a SOAP server error. A SOAP server error *may* be different than an HTTP server error (I'll refrain from giving my opinion here), but the issue is how that error should be communicated. As SOAP/HTTP reuses HTTP's application semantics (see the charter 8-), and HTTP has semantics for communicating errors of this type (5xx). Now, if we decide that a SOAP error is different than an HTTP error, I think the question should be *not* about 200 versus 500, but about 500 versus a new 5xx error code, e.g. 506 (SOAP Fault). My opinion; 500 is good enough, but 506 is probably cleaner. I can live with either. Note that I haven't checked to see if 506 is already taken. MB
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 16:04:33 UTC