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

Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:39:57 +0100
To: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1079714397.19112.110.camel@localhost>

David,

I say keep it the way it is. In fact, as I see it the processor doesn't
even *encounter* the unrecognized required extension if it appears in a
part that the processor doesn't need.

Jacek

On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 17:34, David Booth wrote:
> Sanjiva,
> 
> 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.
> 
> BACKGROUND
> 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).
> 
> THE QUESTION
> 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.
> >. . . .
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 11:40:04 GMT

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