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

Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:34:06 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>


Oh!  I assumed we'd want to be consistent with our treatment of 
unrecognized required extensions, but I guess we should ask the rest of the WG.

In the case of required extensions, we do NOT currently require a 
conformant WSDL processor to fault if it encounters an unrecognized 
required extension that appears in a part of the document that the 
processor doesn't need (for example, in a different binding).

If a *part* of a WSDL document is not conformant with the spec, but the 
WSDL processor doesn't need or care about that part (for example, it may be 
in a different binding that the one being used), should a conformant 
processor be required to fault?

What do others think?

At 08:21 AM 3/19/2004 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>. . .
> > 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.
>. . . .

David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 11:34:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:47 UTC