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

Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:21:14 +0600
Message-ID: <17e801c40d58$ddd148a0$02c8a8c0@watson.ibm.com>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hi David,

> Oops, I just realized that this should have been phrased in a way that
> permits the processor to ignore portions of the WSDL document that it
> doesn't need, as already stated in section 7.3.
>
> Consequently, please change the sentence above the 7.3 bullet list to:
> [[
> A conformant WSDL processor MUST adhere to the following rules:
> ]]

Done.

> and then change the newly added bullet item to:
> [[
> A conformant WSDL processor MUST fault if a portion of a WSDL document is
> illegal according to this specification and the WSDL processor attempts to
> process that portion.
> ]]

I don't agree with the text - if a part of a WSDL document is *illegal*
then the whole thing should fail. If there are parts that are not
understood we already have ways of dealing with it (effectively by
invalidating the parent wsdl namespace'd component) but if the doc
is illegal (e.g., a broken QName reference exists) then I don't think
any processor has any business processing such a broken beast.

> Stylistically, I would suggest that this be moved up to become the second
> bullet item.

Done with the old text until we resolve the final wording.

Sanjiva.
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 21:22:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT