- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 17:14:06 -0400 (EDT)
- To: chris.ferris@sun.com (Christopher Ferris)
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org ('xml-dist-app@w3.org')
Chris, From my POV, the important things that this section needs to specify is; 1. How SOAP faults map to HTTP response codes My proposal[1] covers this clearly (IMO), but this proposal doesn't mention the types of SOAP faults at all. As mentioned though, I do like the idea, as in this proposal, of supporting response codes other than *00, so I'd like to see my proposal extended in that way. 2. How SOAP/HTTP applications should recognize faults (the contra of #1 above) A SOAP fault returned with a 200 response code should not mean the same thing as a SOAP fault returned with a 500 response code. My proposal addressed this by implicitly requiring (granted, it should have been stated explicitly) that SOAP faults cannot be sent with a 2xx response code and still have fault semantics. 3. How SOAP/HTTP applications should recognize "good" SOAP responses Just as MarkN discussed at the bottom of [2]. My proposal at the bottom of [3] needs to be clarified in the context of #2 above. I also see it as a secondary issue as to what the valid set of response codes are. I would be content without anything being written about this. Do you want me to whip up an alternate proposal? That way we can compare them side-by-side and cut-and-paste as necessary. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jun/0017.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0227.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0237.html MB
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 17:11:47 UTC