W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2006

RE: New interchange results

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:30:11 -0800
To: "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006a01c7129d$846ed550$3901a8c0@DELLICIOUS>

Thanks, lots more green at

See inline.

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Youenn Fablet [mailto:youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 3:04 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: New interchange results
> Please find updated canon interchange results.
> These results should integrate  the latest interchange schema fixes and
> include the newly added wsdl test-cases.
> I hope all generated interchange documents are now schema valid.

Not quite!  I show some duplicate IDs in MessageTest-1G, MessageTest-5G, and
ModuleComposition-1G, on soapHeaderBlockComponent and soapModuleComponents.

> Please find below some issues:
> 1) I am still not able to have results for two files:
>     - Echo-2G: it has a required unknown extension and uses meps that
> are now in the separate W3C note.
>     - WSAddressing1-G: it has the wsa required extension that we do not
> support.
> What should we do with these test cases?

As far as the interchange format is concerned, there isn't any problem with
required extensions or extended MEPs - in both cases the interchange can be
generated just fine, even when the component model can't be correctly used
further downstream.  I do see a problem with comparing results between an
implementation that does support those extensions, but so far we don't have
that problem!

If however your implementation doesn't separate these cases, we can simply
indicate that in our results, showing that it's simply a limitation of our
test methodology rather than of the spec.

> 2) I also have a problem with MessageTest-2G: the schema document uses
> the type 'IntFaultStruct' without defining it.
> This type is also used and defined in MessageTest-1G.
> I assume the type definition from MessageTest-1G should be copied in
> MessageTest-2G.
> Jonathan, can you update this schema document?


> 3) It seems that the interchange canonicalization is not reordering the
> message and fault references within interface/binding operations.
> This leads to differences between the baseline and some canon
> interchange documents which are not meaningful.
> Jonathan, can you add the reordering in the canonicalization stylesheet
> and rerun the comparisons?

I fixed some issues with this at the FTF, which I think must have worked
because I'm not seeing any failures because of ordering issues.  Maybe
you've got an old version.

However, I also improved the comparison results to give the nearest xml:id
value - that helps narrow down just where the problem is more quickly.
Should have done that long ago.

Checking in all the above fixes shortly...

> Thanks,
>     Youenn
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 03:30:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:07:03 UTC