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

Re: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, discrepancies

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:06:19 -0400
Cc: "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Message-Id: <A9E76764-CCC3-11D6-817E-0003937568DC@sun.com>

On Friday, Sep 20, 2002, at 11:30 US/Eastern, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
> 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>
Yes, I prefer your version.

>> 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.
OK, I guess we are at least self consistent since a conforming node 
would only produce 400 or 500 for faults as specified in table 23.


Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 16:03:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:52 UTC