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: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:20:03 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040322165354.026e1100@localhost>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Sanjiva,

As far as I know, you are the only one who was in favor of REQUIRING the 
processor to fault if there is ANY part of the WSDL document that is 
non-conformant, even if that part of the document is not needed (for 
example, if it is in a different binding).  So if I've understood other 
people's responses, it looks like others agree with the wording I proposed 
for the bullet item in section 7.3., which was to change:
[[
A conformant processor MUST fault if presented with a
non-conformant WSDL 2.0 document.
]]
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.
]]

(Bear in mind that unless we say something to the contrary,  a conformant 
processor MAY fault if an unneeded portion of a WSDL document is 
illegal.  Unless we explicitly prohibit such behavior, then it would be 
allowed by default.)

Are you sure you want to REQUIRE every conformant processor to fault on any 
illegal but unneeded portion of the WSDL document?  As I pointed out in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0219.html
such a requirement would be a departure from the approach we're taking for 
mandatory extensions.



At 09:17 PM 3/22/2004 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>OK so what's the verdict on this thread? David Booth can you
>please give a summary and recommendation?
>
>THanks,
>
>Sanjiva.

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 17:20:10 GMT

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