W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

Re: A scenario investigating questions of conformance and scoping

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:52:58 +0100
To: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1077119578.5030.26.camel@localhost>

Amy, others,

I think this all boils down to what is and isn't optional where.

We've established that extensions not marked as required are optional
and may be ignored by a successful parsing process.

My view is that considering only the WSDL core elements, the following
optionality rules should apply:

     1. inside definitions EII, imports and includes and types are
        required (to process), interfaces, bindings and services are
        optional
     2. inside types, all is optional (we could mandate XML Schema
        elements since every conforming WSDL processor is required to
        know that)
     3. inside interfaces, all is required
     4. inside bindings, the same
     5. inside services, all endpoints are optional
     6. inside other elements everything is required

Basically, when you "process a WSDL", you might collect the service
names and ask the user which ones to use, ignoring the rest. When you
"process a WSDL service", you could do the same with endpoints. But you
couldn't ignore an operation in an interface that you choose to process
(say because it is referenced by an endpoint you want to access).

Do you agree with the above list? Should we add that list in the spec?

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/




On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 18:03, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> Heylas,
> 
> After the discussion late on Thursday (at the face to face, or in my
> case phone to face) on conformance issues (issue 79), I thought that I
> would write up this scenario, to raise questions.
> 
> It's always the same question: should the WSDL processor proceed,
> ignoring irrelevant stuff that it doesn't understand, or should it halt
> because there is something in the WSDL that it doesn't understand, or
> should it do-something-else when it encounters unknown information that
> it does not understand?

[snip]
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2004 10:53:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:02 UTC