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

Re: Optional Extensions

From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:36:15 -0800
Message-ID: <4016937F.8030207@webmethods.com>
To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: Web Services Description <www-ws-desc@w3.org>



Glen Daniels wrote:

>I'm sorry, but I don't understand this whole "may ignore them" business.
>What exactly is a processor going to do with an extension it doesn't
>understand?  IMHO, it has to ignore them unless they are marked as
>required, in which case it fails. 
>
It *can* give an option to a user of the tool to decide if it should go 
ahead ignoring the extensions it did not understand even if they are 
optional extensions or minimally issue a warning message (as a 
configurable option say). Blindly ignoring and staying silent on the 
user is the worst thing a tool can do to a user. I may want to build a 
client that understands certain optional extensions I need to use. If 
the tool does not handle some of the extensions, I as a programmer may 
like to have an option to override and plug in my code as needed or at 
least be notified.

That way I can decide to buy tool-A that does not understand all the 
extensions vs Tool-B that does. May be some tool builders :-D would not 
like that.

Just putting forth a pragmatic perspective for discussion. Grab some 
cool-aid will you!!!

> I think this is common sense, but it
>wouldn't hurt to specify it either.
>
Common sense tells me not to blow my top off silly also :)

>
>--Glen 
>
>  
>
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:15:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:28 GMT