W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2002

RE: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance

From: Hurley, Oisin <oisin.hurley@iona.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 19:05:14 -0000
Message-ID: <975FABE12685EB48B1560454DF5326362BB04C@emea-ems1.IONAGLOBAL.COM>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>

>"An implementation may be said to be SOAP 1.2 conformant if and 
>only if it completely and correctly implements that normative
requirements 
>of {ref to framework and adjuncts.}  

...now the question is, what do we mean by 'normative' in terms
of the wording used in the specification? Certainly any statement
that is preceded by a MUST is a normative one, but if an implementation
fudges a SHOULD, should that implementation claim conformance?

My initial thought is no, full suite conformance should not be 
claimed in this case, although it may be ok to claim conformance
with named caveats - an 'amber bar' rather than 'green bar' or
'red bar'. This is important I think, any comments?

>The W3C does not at this time provide for any 
>comprehensive means of testing for such conformance.  The tests in this

>document are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for 
>demonstrating conformance to SOAP 1.2.  Accordingly, a SOAP 1.2 
>implementation that 
>passes all of the tests specified in this document may claim to 
>conform to the SOAP 1.2 Test Suite (insert version number)."

That is quite definitely in the ballpark and an improvement on
the current wording - expect to see it in the text :)

 regards
   --oh
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 14:05:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT