Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input

Sanjiva, 

I think we've been through this, IMO a processor need not fail on a
document that contains an unused binding with complete random
(well-formed) XML inside:

<wsdl:definitions ...>
  <wsdl:binding name="foobar">
    <wsdl:interface shoeSize="43"/>
    <wsdl:service>or two</wsdl:service>
  </wsdl:binding>
</wsdl:definitions>

If I don't process binding foobar, I don't care it's badly broken.

Jacek


On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 03:21, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> > Oops, I just realized that this should have been phrased in a way that
> > permits the processor to ignore portions of the WSDL document that it
> > doesn't need, as already stated in section 7.3.
> >
> > Consequently, please change the sentence above the 7.3 bullet list to:
> > [[
> > A conformant WSDL processor MUST adhere to the following rules:
> > ]]
> 
> Done.
> 
> > and then change the newly added bullet item to:
> > [[
> > A conformant WSDL processor MUST fault if a portion of a WSDL document is
> > illegal according to this specification and the WSDL processor attempts to
> > process that portion.
> > ]]
> 
> I don't agree with the text - if a part of a WSDL document is *illegal*
> then the whole thing should fail. If there are parts that are not
> understood we already have ways of dealing with it (effectively by
> invalidating the parent wsdl namespace'd component) but if the doc
> is illegal (e.g., a broken QName reference exists) then I don't think
> any processor has any business processing such a broken beast.
> 
> > Stylistically, I would suggest that this be moved up to become the second
> > bullet item.
> 
> Done with the old text until we resolve the final wording.
> 
> Sanjiva.
>

Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 08:20:25 UTC