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

Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:42:20 +0600
Message-ID: <027001c41078$166cde50$02c8a8c0@watson.ibm.com>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

OK I accept defeat willingly on this one; just incorporated your
new words.

Do we need to say somewhere that the document must be a legal XML
document first?? Otherwise there can be illegal stuff in an unused
binding and we'd still happily allow it; which IMO simply must not
be the case. Maybe XML compliance is implied somewhere?

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input


> 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 20:44:31 GMT

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