- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 08:30:57 -0700
- To: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Marc, Thanks for writing this up--only a few comments below... ><proposed> >Table 17 details the transitions that take place when a >requesting SOAP >node receives an HTTP status line and response header. <new>For some >status codes there are two possible next states: Fail and >Sending+Receiving. In these cases the transition is dependent on the >media type of the response. If the media type does not correspond to a >SOAP message the next state is Fail. If the media type >corresponds to a >SOAP message the next state is Sending+Receiving.</new> ... ></proposed> The only comment here is similar to what I suggested to Herve which is that we should express it in terms of SOAP messages rather than the content type: <ProposedByMarc> In these cases the transition is dependent on the media type of the response. If the media type does not correspond to a SOAP message the next state is Fail. If the media type corresponds to a SOAP message the next state is Sending+Receiving. </ProposedByMarc> <ProposedFriendlyAmmendment> In these cases the transition is dependent on whether a SOAP message is present in the HTTP response. If a SOAP message is present, the next state is "Sending+Receiving"; otherwise the next state is "Fail". </ProposedFriendlyAmmendment> ><proposed> >Indicates a problem with the received request message. ></proposed> Ok ><proposed> >Indicates a server problem or a problem with the received request >message. ></proposed> ok >Question: should we add Sending+Receiving as a possible next state for >any of the other failure oriented status codes in table 17 ? I think it is fine as is as the other status codes are already described by HTTP. Henrik
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 11:30:59 UTC