W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > July 2002

RE: QA WG Review of the XML Protocol SOAP 1.2 specification (fwd)

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 19:00:08 +0200 (MET DST)
To: xmlp-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0207311857290.17460-101000@tarantula.inria.fr>
Sent on behalf of Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>

Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:47:25 -0700

Hi David,

Here are the detailed results of my review of the 4 documents [1-4] on
behalf of the QA WG. I apologize for sending them late for the reasons
stated previously. Hope the issues raised below will be still considered.

Attached you may find the analysis document for SOAP 1.2 specification
against the checkpoints from the draft of the QA Specification Guidelines
[5]. Note the "Not satisfied" checkpoints, issues are summarized below.

As I noted in my previous message, overall I find the SOAP 1.2
specification parts [1-3] to be in a good condition from testability point
of view, especially coupled with the "Assertions and Test Collection" [4].

Nevertheless, there are several issues that I find to be critical, and that
could be easily fixed:

      1.    There is no dedicated Scope section that would explain what is
      in scope and what is explicitly left out of scope of the
      2.    There is no dedicated Conformance section that would
            o       Define what is the object of the spec (SOAP Processor)
            and what is it.
            o       when an implementation could claim conformance to the
            SOAP 1.2 spec, and what does it mean.
            o       clearly state that Part I is obligatory and any adjunct
            from the Part II is optional. What combinations of the adjuncts
            in Part II are allowed.
            o       State explicitly, does the implementation of the Part I
            that does not use any of the adjunct of the Part II still
            conform to the SOAP 1.2 specification.
      3.    Embedded in the issue 2. Not clear if the implementation is
      required to implement any of the adjuncts from the Part 2 in order to
      conform to the SOAP 1.2 specification.
      4.    Embedded in the issue 2. Not defined what can be called a "SOAP
      5.    For some of the multiple-choice assertions, it is not
      explicitly defined whether the choice must be consistent by the SOAP
      Node or not.
      For example, in the section 2.4, assertion regarding mustUnderstand
      SOAP headers that allows to either process the Header marked as
      MustUnderstand or generate a Fault message. It is not clear under
      which circumstances the behavior of the SOAP Node MUST remain

Let me know if you have any questions. I'll be back from vacation August 6
(superscript: th), checking email infrequently. In my absence, Lofton could
answer your questions regarding the QA Specification Guidelines.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part0-20020626/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part2-20020626/
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-testcollection-20020626/
[5] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qaframe-spec

Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2002 13:00:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:59 UTC