- From: Chris. <chris.forummail@swankinnovations.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
- To: www-validator@w3.org
Oliver, There seem to be two distinct questions here: 1.) What grouping(s) should be permitted? 2.) What is acceptable with regard to backwards compatibility? I'll start with the 2nd question. Since your documentation lists this the SOAP interface as more of an "alpha/beta" product, I am OK with a clean break to make both web and SOAP interfaces share the same defaults. That said, I don't want anybody making my app obsolete in the future, either. So, is it possible to leave the current SOAP 1.2 engine live and give current output to any app requesting output="soap12" and make the changes available via output="soap13"? That would be the best of all worlds. By the way, you state that: olivier Thereaux wrote: > > Now... this is the tricky part. In the user interface we have a > group= parameter. > * if group=0 the sequential mode is in effect > * if group=1 the grouped mode is in effect > * in the html output, if the group parameter is not given the default > is sequential mode > * in the soap output the current "default" and only mode is grouped. > I don't think that this is correct as the 'grouped' mode for the web api groups all errors or warnings of the same 'type' (message id, really) but a group of errors can be followed by a group of warnings or vice versa. In the default output for the soap api, all errors (ordered sequentially by occurrence) and all warnings (ordered sequentially by occurrence) are segregated into separate containers. This seems like a third (more useless) mode that is its own creation -- closest to sequential mode of the web api if anything. -Chris -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/proposal-to-have-sequential---grouped-messages-in-soap-output-tf4637790.html#a13247363 Sent from the w3.org - www-validator mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 05:39:22 UTC