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

RE: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:00:01 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF1A032DBC@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <dbooth@w3.org>, <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Cc: <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Maybe this is a part of what distinguishes a processor as being
'conformant' ?

My documentation processor which indexes a bunch of WSDLs in a directory 
structure won't fault if there is some complex failure deep down inside 
a binding. I don't want the spec to preclude me from only looking at the 
tags i'm interested in, but then i wouldn't be tempted to claim my 
processor as being 'conformant'. 

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of David Booth
Sent: 19 March 2004 16:51
To: Jacek Kopecky
Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; WS-Description WG
Subject: Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input



Jacek,

The question was not about unrecognized required extensions.  (Sorry if it 
was confusing!)  The question was about a part of the WSDL document being 
non-conformant: Should a conformant processor still be required to fault if 
it doesn't need the non-conformant part of the document?


At 05:39 PM 3/19/2004 +0100, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>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.
> > >. . . .

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 12:00:38 GMT

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