Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input

"Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com> writes:
> 
> What I am particularly concerned about bindings we define normatively in
> our specification, not an extension, such as HTTP binding and processors
> choosing to skip it and calling themselves conformant, even if there is 
> a bug in the document they process.

Ah now I understand.

This is a totally different question: Do we want to require all
WSDL processors to support all the bindings we define?

I don't think we should mandate it, but I am confident market 
forces will require support for SOAP. I'm not so sure about
the HTTP binding (sorry Phillipe) as it doesn't work with 
other stuff in the Web service stack. But it doesn't matter;
the market will decide what gets supported. Mandating support
will result in a California budget like situation: laws require
lots of stuff but there ain't no money to pay for it.

In fact, that's precisely the stuff that *should* be profiled
IMO! I'd be quite happy if the WS-I profile for WSDL 2.0 says
simply "You must support the SOAP/HTTP binding that those WSDLers
defined."

Sanjiva.

Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 22:08:11 UTC