W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2002

RE: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:08:56 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192A49@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: jacek@systinet.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org, henrikn@microsoft.com
Hi Mark,

Just wanted to record that you and I (at least) had not reached a common
view about this when this was discussed earlier [1][2] (long messages but
viewpoint at the end).

> I wonder how many SOAP 1.1 implementations get it right?

I don't know that we have actually agreed what "right" is. In particular,
the use-case that you promote is the 'quoting' of a fault say in response to
a request to return a copy of the most recent fault generated.

My own viewpoint is that, given the resolution of issue #12, the transfer of
a fault in an HTTP POST response with a status code of 2xx is inconsistent
lies outside the scope of what we attribute meaning to... its an error in an

Personnally, if the fault quoting use-case *is* of interest to us, I would
rather was embedded a little more deeply in the response message. A bit like
giving our answers to the teacher... "The most recent fault that I generated
was <....>".

Best regards


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Mar/0033.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Mar/0041.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: 19 March 2002 18:59
> To: henrikn@microsoft.com
> Cc: jacek@systinet.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok
> Henrik,
> > IMO, the resolution of this issue [1][2] seems to be very clear on the
> > relationship between a SOAP fault and HTTP status codes so I am I not
> > sure I understand the discussion about which is a hint and which is not.
> As this thread intended to show, I now agree.  Another look at the HTTP
> binding showed that it appears to be consistent with my views of how
> faults should be recognized, which is also consistent with the
> resolution of the issues you cited.
> Adding the resolution text from those issues should also help make this
> issue clearer to its audience, but it would still be nice to
> specifically say "SOAP faults received as part of an HTTP response with
> a non-4xx or 5xx status code, should not be treated as faults".  I could
> see this one *easily* being missed by implementors.  I wonder how many
> SOAP 1.1 implementations get it right?
> Certainly something to add to our conformance tests too.
> So, issue 192 appears to be down to just my first proposal, to add a
> blurb to the binding framework saying that, at the very least, binding
> designers should be aware of this issue (what I proposed for 192 was
> more specific, but I could live with this).
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 15:09:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:48 UTC