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

Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input

From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:53:17 -0800
Message-ID: <40622D7D.5020202@oracle.com>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>"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.
You are well versed in my region's politics ;-)

>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
Ok, let me clarify. I am actually in violent agreement with you.

All I was trying to point out is that perhaps having a conformance 
section for processors is actually not that useful since it is tightly 
coupled to defining a profile. Hence, I am now actually proposing that 
we don't have a processor conformance requirements section at all.



Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Friday, 26 March 2004 14:59:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:39 UTC