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

RE: Comments on WebArch

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:42:09 -0800
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA202B95C11@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

My point is that even the most central feature (well-formedness in the
case of XML) can be circumvented simply by the scenario where a
processor is unable to catch conformance violations.  The XML spec
doesn't say anything about the conformance of streaming processors, and
the world seems to be proceeding just fine.  The concept of XML
well-formedness is not weakened, and interoperability does not seem to
be suffering.

Perhaps saying very little about what a processor does with a WSDL
document that doesn't conform completely (as in, an examination of the
entire document does not reveal conformance violations) is fine.  After
all, we're defining the structure and semantics of valid, meaningful
WSDLs, and one could argue that the behavior of processors fed documents
that aren't valid or meaningful is out of scope.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of David Booth
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:49 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comments on WebArch
> 
> 
> Amy,
> 
> Since we define WSDL 2.0 based on the XML infoset, do we even need to
> consider the case of a physical WSDL document not being well formed
> XML?  Perhaps the question doesn't even need to arise?
> 
> In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0205.html
Amy
> wrote:
> >. . . well-formedness is the place where I tend
> >to want to make a firm stand.  I don't think that we should
explicitly
> >permit ill-formedness, by any means.
> 
> 
> --
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 13:42:08 UTC

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