- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:16:57 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:50 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: >> The spec says that in the case of a syntax error, the MalformedQuery >> fault should be returned. > > That's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the text > that follows from this WG decision: > > "for queries that are not SPARQL Query Strings, you should return > MalformedQuery and you must not return 2xx" > -- http://www.w3.org/2005/08/16-dawg-minutes#item04 Well, it used to say "must not return 2xx", but, as you pointed out, that's a bad leakage from the concrete into the abstract. What did we *mean* when we said "must not return 2xx"? Did we mean "must not return Out Message"? I didn't mean that. What did others mean? I have no idea. As I recall the discussion, you threw that in at the last minute, just before we took the vote. That's neither good nor bad, but I've never been entirely comfortable with that decision. And, as I've said many times, it's redundant by implication of the fault propagation rule. >> Is the relevant language insufficient as it stands? > > Yes; that doesn't say that Out Message *MUST NOT* be returned > in the case of a syntax error. The latest version says that. But, honestly, I have no idea whether that's what the WG wanted. This feels a bit strong-armed to me, just like it did when we took the original decision. Cheers, Kendall -- You're part of the human race All of the stars and the outer space Part of the system again
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 14:17:02 UTC