- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:05:17 -0400
- To: "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Tuesday, Sep 17, 2002, at 09:29 US/Eastern, Herve Ruellan wrote: > Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: >>> An alternative proposal is to change table 23 such that env:Sender >>> is mapped to a HTTP 500 status code. This would then map cleanly >>> with the existing table 17. This would have the added advantage of >>> allowing us to remove table 23 since env:Sender is the only fault >>> not currently mapped to a 500 status code. >> Hmm, I think we have the same problem regardless of the HTTP status >> code. It may not be too bad to do what Herve suggests, maybe >> expressing >> it in terms of SOAP messages rather than the content type: > > I agree. This doesn't appear in table 20 or table 23, but a responding > SOAP node may return a 500 Status Code without any SOAP fault in it. > True, but the description for 500 already says "Indicates that the response message contained in the following HTTP response entity body may contain a SOAP fault." Note the "may". Why bother to change the entry for 400 when the 500 entry already does what we want ? If we change the entry for 400, do we also need to do so for any of the other entries in table 17 ? All of them ? Marc. -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 16:05:19 UTC