This really is both information to individuals going through the problem along with a question.

edit: Now you ask , how come shedding "world wide web." in the URL cause this error whenever a website running in the same address could be recommended without "world wide web.".

I lately produced this issue utilizing a trivial WCF service (the main one from after solving the typical config issues one faces moving something from local IIS to hosting that is shared.

The issue was the next response (from fiddler) upon checking the url in browser. While exploring the net for posts about the subject I discovered numerous conflicting issues pointing towards the same issue additionally towards the posts in which the usual hosting that is shared config issues fix them up.

HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request Server: Microsoft-IIS/7. X-Powered-By: ASP.Internet Date: Tue, 17 August 2010 00:27:52 GMT Content-Length:

In Safari/Chrome this manifests like a blank page.

In IE you receive "The web page can't be found".

In FF you receive "XML Parsing Error: no element found Location: http://................ Line # 1, Column 1:" (that we saw in several conflicting posts on the internet - you can back-link a potential solution)

In Opera you receive "Invalid Address"

I had been itching my mind regarding this for some time, i quickly considered to try investing in the "world wide web." that we was formerly omitting from my url for no particular reason.

Problem solved.

I'm able to now begin to see the normal output within the browser and connect to the service via WCF Test Client.

So now you ask ,:

How come this really make a difference towards the located WCF service when Yes, it doesn't really make a difference for browsing towards the website located in the same address? With or with no "world wide web." I'm able to browse towards the website in the same domain, located on a single account.

To date I have examined this repro on the GoDaddy service. I might try many others later.

Also, if you know - I'd have an interest to be aware what features will probably make my WCF services need full trust instead of medium trust. And then any ideas you've on whether or not this may be beneficial to use such features (in context of least priv ideology).

For reference this is actually the web.config, including one more endpoint recommended by Mike to resolve this.

<?xml version="1."?>



    <customErrors mode="Off"/>



          <remove extension=".svc"/>

          <add extension=".svc" type="System.ServiceModel.Activation.ServiceBuildProvider,System.ServiceModel, Version=3..., Culture=neutral,PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089"/>




  <!-- When implementing the service library project, this content from the config file must be included to the host's

  application.config file. System.Configuration doesn't support config files for libraries. -->



      <service behaviorConfiguration="blah"


        <endpoint address="http://world wide"


                  contract="WCFServ.IEvalService" />

        <endpoint address=""


                  contract="WCFServ.IEvalService" />

        <!--<endpoint address=""


                  contract="IMetadataExchange" />-->



            <add baseAddress="" />







        <behavior title="blah">

          <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="true" />

          <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="true" />






        <add prefix="http://world wide"/>





<startup><supportedRuntime version="v2..50727"/></startup></configuration>