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 18:20:51 +0100
To: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1079716851.19119.135.camel@localhost>

David, sorry I got confused, I agree we should be consistent here, not
requiring a failure in the face of non-conformant parts of a WSDL file
that a processor doesn't need.

BTW, we should make sure to say that any required extension child of
<definitions> must be processed by all processors, even if they only
need a single binding or even a single operation deep inside the file.

Jacek

On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 17:51, David Booth wrote:
> 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.
> > > >. . . .
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 12:20:56 GMT

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