3848Re: [rest-discuss] 403 vs. 409
- Aug 5, 2003On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 07:50:30AM -0400, Walden Mathews wrote:
> > Agreed. If the state was transferred such that it was "processed", thenEven in the latter case, I'd say it's just fine. If your application
> > it's a success. One can, I believe, quite reasonably define "processed"
> > to include determining whether an XML document was well-formed or not
> > ... if that meets your needs.
> Sure, in that case your resource is just an XML parser, not an
> application that consumes well-formed and perhaps valid XML.
only consumes well formed XML on POST, then you *may* want to use 400,
but 200 would be valid as well.
> > No, you got it, that's what I meant. "Back" from the "400 page", so toExcept that the 400 response is supposed to describe the error, so it
> > speak.
> Okay, then the application still has the same means for proceeding
> through the application that it did before the error. Should be no
> problem in terms of state machine.
should be a dead-end from the POV of progressing the application.
There's probably a more accurate way to describe that in terms of
application state, but I can't come up with it right now.
> > Dunno, you'll have to ask the editors.FWIW, 2xx is also like this, as 202 doesn't mean "processed". Henrik
> Okay. Editors?
told me this was a legacy issue that wasn't felt to warrant changing
the first-character rule.
Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>