ISSUE-98: HTTP status code for application specific errors
bertails
HTTP status code for application specific errors
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Best Practices & Guidelines
- Raised by:
- Alexandre Bertails
- Opened on:
- 2014-04-24
- Description:
- LDP does not defined a recommended status code for application specific errors. 4.2.1.6 [1] currently says that the status code is in the 4xx range, plus the use of the rel=describedby Link header.
 
 Here is the discussion I had this morning with SteveS:
 
 [[
 <betehess> SteveS, looks like the LDP spec is vague re: status code for business logic errors (I guess on purpose :-). It says 4xx + rel=describedby. Unofficially, which 4xx would you choose?
 <SteveS> 400
 <betehess> my colleagues think that 400 looks too much like a fallback strategy
 <SteveS> I agree with the sentiment that 400 is “fall back” but I don’t see anything better
 <SteveS> perhaps we should create/propose one?
 <betehess> that would be a good idea
 <betehess> I would expect the spec to help me choose one for business logic errors
 <betehess> but that would be kinda a fallback as well
 <betehess> so maybe 400 is just good enough when used with rel=describedby
 <betehess> or we need something targeting specifically application specific logic
 <SteveS> yes, well what we have now is the link and you follow it and maybe what you get helps
 <SteveS> we could improve it by a) a different status code and/or b) a specialized link relation
 ]]
 
 I am totally fine with the 3 following solutions:
 
 1. 400 + rel=describedby
 2. new status code
 3. 400 + specialized link relation
 
 I have a slight preference for 1. as it is less work.
 
 Alexandre
 
 [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#h5_ldpr-gen-pubclireqs
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: ldp-ISSUE-98 (bertails): HTTP status code for application specific errors [Linked Data Platform Spec] (from sspeiche@gmail.com on 2014-04-24)
- ldp-ISSUE-98 (bertails): HTTP status code for application specific errors [Linked Data Platform Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2014-04-24)
 
Related notes:
Resolution: Add to the BP&G doc option 1, as described in issue-98 ( i.e. 400 + rel=describedby)
See http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-05-05#resolution_2
Display change log