Re: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> 
> Reading it through again, I have two comments:
> 
> 1) Regarding the part:
> 
> "An implementation may be said to be SOAP 1.2 conformant if and only if
> all messages it sends, and all processing it does, are correct with
> respect to the normative requirements of  the SOAP 1.2 specification.
> The W3C does not at this time provide for any comprehensive means of
> testing for such conformance."
> 
> I would delete this piece - the test suite document should IMO not say
> what it means for the SOAP 1.2 specification to be conformant.
> 

The intend was to make it absolutely clear to the reader that the doc
does not define what it means to be 1.2 compliant, and where the reader
should go to figure that out. I think a lot of people will look at the
test suite to figure out conformance issues.

How about:

"An implementation may be said to be SOAP 1.2 conformant if and only if
it satisfies the conformance requirements specified in SOAP 1.2
specification. The W3C does not at this time provide for any
comprehensive means of testing for such conformance."

> 2) Regarding the text:
> 
> "SOAP 1.2 specifies a protocol and a processing model and not a SOAP
> processor or an API, therefore the test suite defines higher level
> application semantics to enable testing and facilitate interoperability
> implementations. It is not necessary for a SOAP processor to support
> these higher level semantics to be SOAP 1.2 compliant."
> 
> I would remove the description of what SOAP 1.2 does define and leave it
> at this text instead:
> 
> "The test suite defines higher level application semantics to enable
> testing and facilitate interoperability implementations. It is not
> necessary for a SOAP processor to support these higher level semantics
> to be SOAP 1.2 compliant. "
> 

That sounds good to me. I will put that on the editors' TODO list.

Thanks.

-Anish
--

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 15:40:07 UTC