Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input

Sanjiva, I believe XML compliance is implied by the fact we're working
with the infoset. If something is not a well-formed XML document, we
will not be presented with it.

Jacek

On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 02:42, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> 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 Tuesday, 23 March 2004 09:05:04 UTC