Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding from Mark Baker on 2001-07-19 (xml-dist-app@w3.org from July 2001)

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:26:35 -0700
To: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-Id: <20010719142420.UADH3894.tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net@SPARTICUS>

Oops, hit send prematurely.  I'll just respond to the one point I missed.

7/19/2001 3:20:30 AM, christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> wrote:

>Mark,
>
>Okay, if we take this approach (reuse application semantics)
>to its fullest interpretation, then yes, SOAP Server.* faults
>would be reported using 500 and possibly MustUnderstand.*
>faults (of course, depending upon your perspective, either
>the client is at fault for including a header that the server
>doesn't understand or the server is at fault for not understanding
>the header;-).

Yah, I got a headache over this one at first too until I looked at the Expect feature of HTTP 1.1.  Then all was made 
clear; it is within the capabilities of the client to resubmit the request without mustUnderstand="1".  The server doesn't 
have a choice.

MB

Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 10:24:50 UTC