W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > October 2007

Re: SOAP API - Warnings & Errors

From: Karim A. <directeur@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:19:34 +0100
Message-ID: <9ddf33ea0710101219q918d58ev6ee6984830946dd5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris. <chris.forummail@swankinnovations.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org

Hi Chris,

I'm with you about, say, 98% of what you've said.
I'm like you working on a soap client, and found myself
intrigued by the same questions.

About the warnings elements, although I'd be
ok for your suggestion in the begning of my
project. I changed my mind, and i think it's still
usable (and maybe better) to have one "warning"
type, and have this kind of rule:

if no line and col are given, so the warning is global.

It's easy and clear IMHO.


Karim
--
http://akoncept.com
Innovate Humanum Est


On 10/10/07, Chris. <chris.forummail@swankinnovations.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> olivier Thereaux wrote:
> >
> > I guess the API documentation is not clear in this regard. Would you
> > have a suggestion of a better way to put it?
> >
>
> As a developer, I need to be able to anticipate possible responses so I want
> to know:
>
>    1. All possible children of warnings and errors
>    2. Which children are required and which are optional.
>    3. If certain children always go (or leave) together, that pattern is
> nice to know too.  (for instance I'm guessing that if there's no 'line'
> element, there will also be no 'col' element -- but, see, I don't really
> know.
>    4. Possible quantities of children (for instance, there will only ever be
> one 'line' and one 'col' unlike the fact that there may be multiple 'error'
> nodes within the 'errorlist'.  I "think" that there are only one of each
> child in an 'error' or a 'warning' so this would be more useful in the table
> outlining the whole SOAP Response Format.
>
> As to suggestions for specific improvements, that depends on #3.  If you can
> clearly break the rules down in to one or two groups of warning 'modes' then
> I would break it down that way for maximum clarity like:
>
> Error Elements - All Error elements contain the following child elements
>  * element
>  * line
>  * col
>  * message
>  * messageid
>  * explanation
>  * source
>
> General Warning - This Warning type deals with the document as a whole and
> contains the following child elements:
>  * message
>  * messageid
>
> Specific Warning - This Warning Type Contains the Following Child Elements
>  * element
>  * line
>  * col
>  * message
>  * messageid
>  * explanation
>  * source
>
> Rather than the bulleted list, though, I'd probably use tables like
> currently used and include the description of the element.
>
> I'd also add a 3rd column for number of occurrences for each child element
> (they'd all be 1 here but in the response format table, you'd have things
> like 'doctype' and 'errorlist' with a qty=1 but 'error' and 'warning' would
> be qty=0..n -- which is helpful to know).
>
> If you want to be more thorough, the range of possible values for each
> element would also be useful (m:line, m:col can only be positive integers,
> while m:explanation is HTML wrapped in CDATA, and m:doctype -- while it
> always occurs, can be empty).
>
> The real question is whether my simple breakdown of 'warnings' is accurate.
> If, instead, you have 100 different permutations of what can go in a warning
> or error, it's becomes harder to convey the true possibilities.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> -Chris
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/SOAP-API---Warnings---Errors-tf4596626.html#a13129183
> Sent from the w3.org - www-validator mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:19:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:25 GMT