W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

RE: Comments on WebArch

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:38:45 -0800
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA202B07799@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I completely agree with our current desired behavior, just wanted to
flag that there might be a boundary with what the AWWW recommends.

There are analogous situations - for instance, I can open an XML
document, stream it in, successfully process the information I find
early in the file, and not report that 1Mb down in the file there is a
well-formedness error.  The document is not well-formed, but a
particular processor may not be able to detect and report the error.

We're taking that too a new level by contemplating describing precisely
what paths a WSDL processor might take and which errors it might not be
able to detect.  Perhaps this detailed description of WSDL processing is
the wrong approach, and we just need a generic statement that "a
particular processor may not be able to detect and report errors in a
portion of the document that it is not processing," or "a particular
processor is not required to detect and report errors in portions of the
document that it is not processing."  And leave the definition of what
parts of the document a processor processes to the processor.  This gets
us out of the business of defining and constraining a WSDL processor, as
DBooth is trying to do with issue 79.

In any case, this might be worth a highlighting in our joint meeting
with the TAG.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 6:02 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comments on WebArch
> At the same time, I wouldn't want, for example, to flag (potential)
> errors in bindings that I not support. I would like to focus on the
> binding I do support, and forget the rest, including the errors.
> JJ.
> Jonathan Marsh snip:
> > 1.2.3: "Principle: Error recovery.  Silent recovery from error is
> > harmful."
> >
> > Could this conflict with the ability to only use a part of a
> > that does not contain errors, without flagging errors in other parts
> > the document?
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2004 12:38:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:38 UTC