- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 16:50:30 -0400
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "Rice, Ed (ProCurve)" <ed.rice@hp.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Roy Fielding writes: > I do believe that the finding applies equally to SOAP and WSDL. Indeed. > Under no circumstances is a directory service more authoritative > than the service itself. A discrepancy may indicate an error in > either the directory or the service, but the agent must treat the > service as authoritative because it is far more likely to be aware > of its own evolution over time than a disconnected directory. I strongly agree. Furthermore, I believe it to be the case that the SOAP processing model mandates this interpretation. It specifically dictates the normative interpretation of a received SOAP message, and it does so based purely on the content of that message interpreted according to (1) the SOAP 1.2 Recommendation and (2) to the specifications for the specific QName'd headers that may appear in the message. In no case does SOAP provide for WSDL to override the correct interpretation of a SOAP message. Of course, when there is a conflict, it's perfectly reasonable to signal an error at the WSDL level. The nature of that error is: "The message, which I correctly interpreted based on the SOAP Recommendation, was not what the WSDL led me to expect." That's as opposed to incorrectly saying: "I used the WSDL to override the normative SOAP interpretation of the message." -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 20:51:38 UTC