RE: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues

Le jeudi 05 mai 2005 ŗ 13:04 -0700, Jonathan Marsh a ťcrit :
> I've consolidated earlier threads into this one since some of the recent changes have made prior resolutions obsolete.  We'd appreciate a definite response within two weeks, since the "agreement" state of some of these resolutions may otherwise be clear.

I accept as is resolutions on which I don't comment below, and would
like feedback on the others. I'm unlikely to raise an objection on any
of these, at least on this last call.

> [1]
> > 
> > * Document conformance
> >
> >  "Note that the WSDL language is defined in terms of the component
> > model
> > defined by this specification. As such, it is explicitly NOT a
> > conformance requirement to be able to process documents encoded in a
> > particular version of XML, in particular XML 1.1 [XML 1.1]." is both
> > very hard to read, and probably in contradiction with the header
> > "document conformance"; I guess this needs clarification
> > It is particularly unclear to me that defining conformance for an
> > "element information item" has any sense at all.
> Tracked as LC5a [2], you previously accepted our resolution [3] though with concerns, but that text has undergone additional modification [4].  We believe the additional definition of a conformant XML 1.0 WSDL document further addresses this issue.

Ok, the new text reads much better, indeed. I would have put that
section in the section conformance rather than introduction, though.

> [2]
> [3]
> [4];%20charset=utf-8#markup

> > * it would be interesting to list (maybe in an appendix) what
> > constraints are not translated in the provided XML Schema
> Tracked as LC5c [7] you previously expressed agreement [8] with our resolution of this issue.
> [7]
> [8]
> > * you use both the expressions "a processor MUST fault" and "a
> > processor
> > MUST fail"; do they mean the same thing? In any case, I think you
> > should
> > clarify what is meant by those (i.e. what consist failing/faulting
> > in?),
> > and if they mean the same thing, only use one of the expressions;
> > also,
> > since the name 'fault' is used in a very well defined context in the
> > spec, I think you should avoid using the verb 'fault' unless it
> > relates
> > to the said context; more generally, I think developing the notion of
> > error handling for a WSDL processor would be benefitial
> Tracked as LC5f [13], this issue caused long discussion by the WG on what we mean by a conformant WSDL processor.  As a description language, the desired output of such a WSDL processor is not well defined and varies greatly between various classes of usage.  In the end, we were most comfortable dropping the notion of a conformant WSDL processor from the spec in favor of strengthening the definition of and meaning ascribed to conformant WSDL documents.  The final proposal we adopted is at [14] (we chose option A).

I think dropping the notion and conformance rules for a processor is
probably a loss for the specification, but maybe the group doesn't have
enough implementation experience to define one or several classes of
products for WSDL processors? I guess the point I'm trying to make is,
when a customer wants to buy an interoperable solution using WSDL,
she'll need to know how to name this or this type of software, and this
naming ought to be done in the specification IMO.

FWIW, the introduction still says "It also defines criteria for a
conformant processor of this language" and there are still a few places
where conformance requirements are set for processors (e.g. "All WSDL
2.0 processors MUST support XML Schema type definitions").


> [13]
> [14]
> > 4.
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux -

Received on Thursday, 12 May 2005 10:47:30 UTC