- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:45:15 +0000
- To: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7911 --- Comment #4 from Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com> 2009-10-14 12:45:15 --- But Yves, you're focusing on just one particular "mismatch" when there are any number of possible "mismatches". What if the actionURI doesn't match what the spec says it should be? What if the schema of the body doesn't match the xsd in the wsdl? What if the Dialect URI isn't a URI? What if the dateTime (in eventing) has had characters in it? What if the HTTP SOAPAction header doesn't match? What if, in response to a T.Get() the server sends back a T.PutResponse()? You said: we have to define what happens when something bad happens because we defined the same thing in two different places. Why? What's special about "two different places"? Does this imply we don't need to define what happens when something bad happens in cases where we don't duplicate info? I doubt it. There are a ton of things that could be bad about the incoming message and they seem to fall into the category of "you didn't do what the spec told you to do", because the spec is very clear about what is supposed to be on the wire. I'm missing why this one "mismatch" is special and needs a new fault when the general soap Sender fault would seem to already cover it. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 12:45:19 UTC