- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:06:19 -0400
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Friday, Sep 20, 2002, at 11:30 US/Eastern, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > 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. -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 16:03:05 UTC