http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-errata.html
Editors:
- Chris Ferris, IBM
- Anish Karmarkar, Oracle Corp.
- Mark Nottingham, BEA Systems
Administrative contact:
Copyright © 2002-2004 by The Web Services-Interoperability Organization
(WS-I) and
Certain of its Members. All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document contains the set of published errata against the WS-I BasicProfile-1.0.
Status of this Document
This document is a Board Approval Draft; it has been approved for publication
by the Working Group, and is submitted for consideration by the Board of
Directors, and for public comment. It is a work in progress, and should not be
considered as final; other documents may supersede this document.
Notice
The material contained herein is not a license, either expressly or
impliedly, to any intellectual property owned or controlled by any of the
authors or developers of this material or WS-I. The material contained herein is
provided on an "AS IS" basis and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable
law, this material is provided AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and the authors and
developers of this material and WS-I hereby disclaim all other warranties and
conditions, either express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to,
any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of
fitness for a particular purpose, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of
results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence.
ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET
POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO
THIS MATERIAL.
IN NO EVENT WILL ANY AUTHOR OR DEVELOPER OF THIS MATERIAL OR WS-I BE LIABLE
TO ANY OTHER PARTY FOR THE COST OF PROCURING SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, LOST
PROFITS, LOSS OF USE, LOSS OF DATA, OR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, OR SPECIAL DAMAGES WHETHER UNDER CONTRACT, TORT, WARRANTY, OR
OTHERWISE, ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THIS OR ANY OTHER AGREEMENT RELATING TO
THIS MATERIAL, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH PARTY HAD ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Feedback
The Web Services-Interoperability Organization (WS-I) would like to receive
input, suggestions and other feedback ("Feedback") on this work from a wide
variety of industry participants to improve its quality over time.
By sending email, or otherwise communicating with WS-I, you (on behalf of
yourself if you are an individual, and your company if you are providing
Feedback on behalf of the company) will be deemed to have granted to WS-I, the
members of WS-I, and other parties that have access to your Feedback, a
non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free
license to use, disclose, copy, license, modify, sublicense or otherwise
distribute and exploit in any manner whatsoever the Feedback you provide
regarding the work. You acknowledge that you have no expectation of
confidentiality with respect to any Feedback you provide. You represent and
warrant that you have rights to provide this Feedback, and if you are providing
Feedback on behalf of a company, you represent and warrant that you have the
rights to provide Feedback on behalf of your company. You also acknowledge that
WS-I is not required to review, discuss, use, consider or in any way incorporate
your Feedback into future versions of its work. If WS-I does incorporate some or
all of your Feedback in a future version of the work, it may, but is not
obligated to include your name (or, if you are identified as acting on behalf of
your company, the name of your company) on a list of contributors to the work.
If the foregoing is not acceptable to you and any company on whose behalf you
are acting, please do not provide any Feedback.
Feedback on this document should be directed to wsbasic_comment@ws-i.org.
er001 |
Use of xsi:type |
|
|
- Description
- R1017 does not give clear guidance regarding the use of xsi:type.
For instance, if a part is defined using an XSD data type (e.g.
xsd:string or xsd:int ) and it is used in a
rpc-literal binding, should the part accessor in the message have an
xsi:type attribute?
- Resolution: 2003-09-16
-
Delete the second sentence in Section
4.1.15 which reads:
The xsi:type attribute is only needed where no such schema exists,
that is where both sides are assuming that all exchanged items are
"xsd:anyType".
Section 4.1.15 now reads as follows:
In many cases, senders and receivers will share some form of type
information related to the messages being exchanged.
R1017 A RECEIVER MUST NOT mandate the use of the xsi:type attribute
in messages except as required in order to indicate a derived type (see
XML Schema Part 1: Structures, Section 2.6.1). |
er002 |
NS qualification of children of part accessors for
rpc-lit binding and R2737 |
|
|
- Description
- R2737 is incorrect as it always requires the children of part
accessors (for rpc-literal binding) to be NS qualified with the
targetNamespace in which the part types are defined.
- Resolution: 2003-09-23
-
Change R2737
from:
R2737 A MESSAGE described with an rpc-literal binding MUST namespace
qualify the children of part accessor elements for the parameters and
the return value with the targetNamespace in which their types are
defined.
to:
R2737 A MESSAGE described with an rpc-literal binding MUST namespace
qualify the descendents of part accessor elements for the parameters and
the return value, as defined by the schema in which the part accessor
types are defined. |
er003 |
R2101 is ambiguous as to whether it applies to
Schema or WSDL components |
|
|
- Description
- Does R2101 apply only to schema OR to WSDL components?
- Resolution: 2003-09-16
-
Change R2101
from:
R2101 A DESCRIPTION MUST NOT use QName references to elements in
namespaces that have been neither imported, nor defined in the referring
WSDL document.
to:
R2101 A DESCRIPTION MUST NOT use QName references to WSDL components
in namespaces that have been neither imported, nor defined in the
referring WSDL document. |
er005 |
R2705 wordings are awkward |
|
|
- Description
- R2705 wording are awkward/incorrect
- Resolution: 2003-09-16
-
Change R2705
from:
R2705 A wsdl:binding in a DESCRIPTION MUST use either be
a rpc-literal binding or a document-literal binding.
to:
R2705 A wsdl:binding in a DESCRIPTION MUST either be an
rpc-literal binding or a document-literal
binding. |
er006 |
Intent of R2004 |
|
|
- Description
- Was it the intention of BP 1.0 to prevent multiple inlined schemas
in the same WSDL document to refer to each other (using
xsd:import )
- Resolution: 2003-11-13
-
The schemaLocation attribute of the xsd:import element
is optional, R2004 does not prevent importation of schemas using the
namespace attribute alone. This allows, for example, a schema within a
wsdl:types section to import another schema defined within
the same wsdl:types section using xsd:import
with just the namespace attribute.
Change R2004
from:
R2004 A DESCRIPTION MUST NOT use the XML Schema "import" statement to
import a Schema from any document whose root element is not "schema"
from the namespace "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema".
to:
R2004 In a DESCRIPTION the schemaLocation attribute of an
xsd:import element MUST NOT resolve to any document whose
root element is not "schema" from the namespace
"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema". |
er007 |
Incorrect use of the word 'array' in R2110, R2111,
R2112, and R2113 |
|
|
- Description
- R2110, R2111, R2112, and R2113 restricts array descriptions. This is
confusing and untestable as the concept of "array" is alien to XML
Schema
- Resolution: 2003-10-21
-
Remove the use of the word "array" in R2110, R2111, R2112, and
R2113
-
Change R2110
from:
R2110 In a DESCRIPTION, array declarations MUST NOT extend or
restrict the soapenc:Array type.
to:
R2110 In a DESCRIPTION, declarations MUST NOT extend or restrict
the soapenc:Array type.
-
Change R2111
from:
R2111 In a DESCRIPTION, array declarations MUST NOT use
wsdl:arrayType attribute in the type declaration.
to:
R2111 In a DESCRIPTION, declarations MUST NOT use
wsdl:arrayType attribute in the type declaration.
-
Change R2112
from:
R2112 In a DESCRIPTION, array declaration wrapper elements SHOULD
NOT be named using the convention ArrayOfXXX.
to:
R2112 In a DESCRIPTION, elements SHOULD NOT be named using the
convention ArrayOfXXX.
-
Change R2113
from:
R2113 A MESSAGE containing serialized arrays MUST NOT include the
soapenc:arrayType attribute.
to:
R2113 A MESSAGE MUST NOT include the soapenc:arrayType
attribute. |
er008 |
Incorrect definition of "rpc-literal" and
"document-literal" operations |
|
|
- Description
- Section 5.3 is confusing as it does not clearly specify where the
style attribute can occur.
- Resolution: 2003-11-13
-
Change the fifth paragraph of Section
5.3 from:
An "rpc-literal operation" is a wsdl:operation child
element of wsdl:binding each of whose
soapbind:body descendant elements specifies the use
attribute with the value "literal" and each of which either:
- Specifies the style attribute with the value "rpc"; or
- Is the child of a
soapbind:binding element which
specifies the style attribute with the value "rpc", and does not
itself have the style attribute specified.
to:
An "rpc-literal operation" is a wsdl:operation child
element of wsdl:binding whose soapbind:body
descendant elements specify the use attribute with the value "literal",
and either:
- The style attribute with the value "rpc" is specified on the child
soapbind:operation element; or
- The style attribute is not present on the child
soapbind:operation element, and the
soapbind:binding element in the enclosing
wsdl:binding specifies the style attribute with the value
"rpc"
Change the seventh paragraph of Section
5.3 from:
A "document-literal operation" is a wsdl:operation child
element of wsdl:binding each of whose
soapbind:body descendent elements specifies the use
attribute with the value "literal" and each of which either:
- Specifies the style attribute with the value "document"; or
- Is the child of a
soapbind:binding element which
specifies the style attribute with the value "document", and does not
itself have the style attribute specified; or
- Is the child of a
soapbind:binding element which does
not have the style attribute specified, and does not itself have the
style attribute specified.
to:
A "document-literal operation" is a wsdl:operation child
element of wsdl:binding whose soapbind:body
descendent elements specifies the use attribute with the value "literal"
and, either:
- The style attribute with the value "document" is specified on the
child
soapbind:operation element; or
- The style attribute is not present on the child
soapbind:operation element, and the
soapbind:binding element in the enclosing
wsdl:binding specifies the style attribute with the value
"document"; or
- The style attribute is not present on both the child
soapbind:operation element and the
soapbind:binding element in the enclosing
wsdl:binding . |
er009 |
Intent of R2401 |
|
|
- Description
- What is the intent of R2401? Does is disallow other binding or
binding extensions?
- Resolution: 2003-11-18
-
Change the first paragraph of Section
5.5.1 from:
The Profile limits the choice of bindings to the well defined and
most commonly used SOAP binding. MIME and HTTP GET/POST bindings are not
permitted by the Profile.
to:
The Profile limits the choice of bindings to the well defined and
most commonly used SOAP binding. HTTP GET/POST bindings, MIME or any
other attachments technology, are not permitted by the Profile.
Change R2401 from:
R2401 A wsdl:binding element in a DESCRIPTION MUST use
WSDL SOAP Binding as defined in WSDL 1.1 Section 3.
to:
R2401 A wsdl:binding element in a DESCRIPTION MUST only
use the WSDL SOAP Binding as defined in WSDL 1.1 Section 3.
Add a new requirement:
R2490 In a DESCRIPTION WSDL binding extension elements and attributes
which cause messages on the wire to be non-conformant to BP 1.0 MUST NOT
be used.
Add a new requirement
R2491 In a DESCRIPTION the WSDL MIME and HTTP GET/POST and DIME
binding extensions MUST NOT appear in the SOAP
binding |
er010 |
What is the meaning of "on the wire"? |
|
|
- Description
- What is the meaning of "on the wire"?
- Resolution: 2004-02-10
-
- Section 1.1 Guiding Principles - no change; this is not normative,
and the phrase is used colloquially.
- Section 5.3 Messages - change "specific wire format" to "specific
message serialization."
- Section 5.3.1 Bindings and Parts - change "the wire representation
of that part" to "the serialization of that part in a message"
- Section 5.4.1 Ordering of part Elements - change "method
signatures and messages on the wire" to "methods' signatures and their
serializations."
- Section 5.6.7 Wire Signatures for Operations - change section
title to "Operation Signatures." Change the first paragraph to read:
An endpoint that supports multiple operations must unambiguously
identify the operation being invoked based on the input message that
it receives. This is only possible if all the operations specified in
the
wsdl:binding associated with an endpoint have a
unique operation signature.
- Section 5.6.7 Wire Signatures for Operations - Change the second
paragraph to read: The profile defines the operation signature to be
the fully qualified name of the child element of SOAP body of the SOAP
input message described by an operation in a WSDL binding.
- R2710 - change "wire signature" to "operation signature"
- Section 5.6.8 - change "on the wire" to "when serialized."
- R2712 - change "represented on the wire" to "serialized."
|
er011 |
SOAP version 1.2 is no longer in
development |
|
|
- Description
- Section 1.2, says that SOAP 1.2 is "currently under development."
This is no longer the case.
- Resolution: 2004-01-13
-
Remove the phrase "currently under development" from Section
1.2.
This changes the sixth paragraph of Section 1.2 from:
Some statements are derived from ongoing standardization work on the
referenced specification(s). For convenience, such forward-derived
statements are annotated in the following manner: xxxx, where "xxxx" is
an identifier for the specification (e.g., "SOAP12" for SOAP Version
1.2, currently under development). Note that because such work is not
complete, the specification that the requirement is derived from may
change; this information is included only as a convenience to
implementers.
to:
Some statements are derived from ongoing standardization work on the
referenced specification(s). For convenience, such forward-derived
statements are annotated in the following manner: xxxx, where "xxxx" is
an identifier for the specification (e.g., "SOAP12" for SOAP Version
1.2). Note that because such work is not complete, the specification
that the requirement is derived from may change; this information is
included only as a convenience to
implementers. |
er012 |
Incorrect reference to media type in
R1018 |
|
|
- Description
- R1018 should refer to a Content-Type header, not a media type (media
types do not contain parameters)
- Resolution: 2004-02-03
-
Replace R1018
text with the following:
R1018 The Content-Type HTTP header field value of a MESSAGE MUST
indicate the correct character encoding, using the charset parameter.
[C] |
er013 |
Extraneous "do" in R1112 |
|
|
- Description
- Extraneous "do" in R1112
- Resolution: 2004-01-13
-
Remove the extraneous "do" from R1112.
Change R1112 from:
An INSTANCE SHOULD use either a "200 OK" or "202 Accepted" HTTP
status code for a response that does do not contain a SOAP message but
indicates successful HTTP outcome of a request.
to:
An INSTANCE SHOULD use either a "200 OK" or "202 Accepted" HTTP
status code for a response that does not contain a SOAP message but
indicates successful HTTP outcome of a
request. |
er014 |
Misplaced space in R1113 |
|
|
- Description
- R1113 has a misplaced space
- Resolution: 2004-02-01
-
Remove the extra space character between 'Request' and '"' and add a
space character between '"' and 'HTTP status code' in R1113.
This changes R1113 from:
An INSTANCE SHOULD use a "400 Bad Request "HTTP status code, if the
request message is a malformed HTTP request, or not well-formed XML.
to:
An INSTANCE SHOULD use a "400 Bad Request" HTTP status code, if the
request message is a malformed HTTP request, or not well-formed
XML. |
er015 |
Placement of WSDL extensibility elements in
WSDL |
|
|
- Description
- WSDL schema and the specification contradict each other with respect
to the placement of WSDL extensibility elements as children of
wsdl:definitions .
- Resolution: 2005-08-16
-
The WS-I WSDL schema published at
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/2003-02-11.xsd is inconsistent with the
WSDL1.1 specification text with regards to the correct placement of
top-level extensibility element content.
The WS-I WSDL schema published at
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/2003-02-11.xsd is therefore amended to
allow element extensibility at the end of the sequence in the
tDefinitions type: <xs:complexType name="tDefinitions">
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:extension base="wsdl:tExtensibleDocumented">
<xs:sequence minOccurs="0">
<xs:group ref="wsdl:anyTopLevelOptionalElement"/>
<xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:group ref="wsdl:anyTopLevelOptionalElement"/>
<xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>
<xs:choice>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name="targetNamespace" type="xs:anyURI" use=
"optional"/>
<xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:NCName" use="optional"/>
<xs:extension>
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:complexType>
As a convenience, WS-I has posted a version of the revised WSDL
schema at: http://ws-i.org/profiles/basic/1.0/wsdl-2005-03-09.xsd
|
er016 |
Extraneous "are required" in Section
4.1.11 |
|
|
- Description
- Extraneous "are required" in Section 4.1.11
- Resolution: 2004-02-01
-
Replace "are required" with "to" in the first line of Section
4.1.11.
This changes Section 4.1.11 from:
The Profile requires all XML processors are required support the
"UTF-8" and "UTF-16" character encodings, in order to aid
interoperability.
to:
The Profile requires all XML processors to support the "UTF-8" and
"UTF-16" character encodings, in order to aid
interoperability. |
er017 |
Section 5.4.4 incorrectly indicates that the
parameterOrder attribute is on the wsdl:portType element |
|
|
- Description
- Section 5.4.4 and R2305 talk about the usage of the parameterOrder
attribute, but it incorrectly indicates that this attribute is on the
wsdl:portType element. It is actually on the
wsdl:operation element.
- Resolution: 2004-01-13
-
Change the first paragraph in Section
5.4.4 from:
WSDL 1.1 does not clearly state how the parameterOrder attribute of
the wsdl:portType should be constructed.
to:
WSDL 1.1 does not clearly state how the parameterOrder attribute of
the wsdl:operation element (which is the child of the
wsdl:portType element) should be constructed.
Change R2305
from:
A wsdl:portType in a DESCRIPTION MUST be constructed so
that the parameterOrder attribute, if present, omits at most 1
wsdl:part from the output message.
to:
A wsdl:operation element child of a
wsdl:portType element in a DESCRIPTION MUST be constructed
so that the parameterOrder attribute, if present, omits at most 1
wsdl:part from the output
message. |
er018 |
Incorrect namespace prefix for the headerfault
element in R2743 |
|
|
- Description
- In Section 5.6.14, requirement R2743 makes a reference to a
wsdl:headerfault element. This element does not exist in
the WSDL namespace
- Resolution: 2004-01-13
-
Change R2743
from:
A MESSAGE MAY contain the details of a header processing related
fault in a SOAP header block that is not described by a
wsdl:headerfault element in the corresponding WSDL
description.
to:
A MESSAGE MAY contain the details of a header processing related
fault in a SOAP header block that is not described by a
soapbind:headerfault element in the corresponding WSDL
description. |
er019 |
Inconsistency between the spec and the schema for
WSDL extensibility |
|
|
- Description
- Section 5.1.11 extensibility list is different from the
extensibility in the schema file located at
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/2003-02-11.xsd
- Resolution: 2004-02-03
-
Remove the phrase "as well as attributes" from the BP1.0 text in
section 5.1.11 |
er020 |
Incorrect URL for SOAP 1.1 |
|
|
- Description
- The URL http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/ is intended to reference the most
recent version of the SOAP specification, which is currently SOAP
Version 1.2. The correct URL for SOAP 1.1 is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/
- Resolution: 2004-01-20
-
Change the hyperlink in the first bullet in Section
4, around the text "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1"
from:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/
Change the hyperlink in the first bullet in Section
4.1, around the text "SOAP 1.1, Section 4" from:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383494
to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/#_Toc478383494
Change the hyperlink in the first bullet in Section
4.2, around the text "SOAP 1.1, Section 2" from:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383491
to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/#_Toc478383491
Change the hyperlink in the first bullet in Section
4.3, around the text "SOAP 1.1, Section 6" from:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383526
to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/#_Toc478383526
Change the hyperlink in the first bullet in Appendix
I, around the text "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1"
from:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/
Change the hyperlink in the third paragraph in Appendix
II, around the text "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1:"
from:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/ |
er021 |
Is the RECEIVER required to accept UTF-8 message
that don't have a BOM? |
|
|
- Description
- R4001 requires the RECEIVER to accept messages that do have a BOM,
but there is no mention of messages that do not have a BOM (which is
allowed by UTF-8)
- Resolution: 2004-01-20
-
Change R4001
from:
A RECEIVER MUST accept messages that include the Unicode Byte Order
Mark (BOM).
to
A RECEIVER MUST accept messages with envelopes that include the
Unicode Byte Order Mark (BOM), in addition to accepting UTF-8 encoded
envelops that do not include a BOM. |
er022 |
Is the RECEIVER required to accept a message that
does not have the XML declaration? |
|
|
- Description
- R1010 requires the RECEIVER to accept messages that that have an XML
declaration, but there is no mention of messages that do not have an XML
declaration
- Resolution: 2004-01-20
-
Change R1010
from:
A RECEIVER MUST accept messages that contain an XML Declaration.
to
A RECEIVER MUST accept messages with envelopes that contain an XML
Declaration, in addition to those that omit the
declaration. |
er023 |
The profile does not say how the 'encoding'
pseudo-attribute of the XML declaration is treated. |
|
|
- Description
- R1018 requires that the HTTP Content-Type header must specify the
'charset' parameter, but does not say how the 'encoding'
pseudo-attribute of the XML declaration of the SOAP is treated.
- Resolution: 2004-01-20
-
Add a new requirement R1019 in Section
4.1.11:
R1019 A RECEIVER MUST ignore the encoding
pseudo-attribute of the envelope's XML declaration in a message.
Add the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph in Section
4.1.11:
The charset parameter of Content-Type HTTP
header field must be used to determine the correct character encoding of
the message, in absence of a charset parameter, the default
value for charset (which is "us-ascii") must be
used. |
er024 |
Clarify the meaning of generating a fault and
explain the difference between generating a fault and transmitting a
fault |
|
|
- Description
- The profile has requirements regarding genaration of a fault (e.g.,
R1027), but does not describe the meaning of generating a fault. The
profile also does not specify the distinction between generating and
transmitting a fault.
- Resolution: 2004-02-03
-
In Section
4.2.3, add the following explanation text:
"Both SOAP and this Profile use the term 'generate' to denote the
creation of a SOAP Fault. It is important to realize that generation of
a Fault is distinct from its transmission, which in some cases is not
required." |
er025 |
Change the 'MUST' to 'SHOULD' in R1029
|
|
|
- Description
- R1029 requires that the service transmit a fault in case of an
error. This means that a service will always have to send a fault, even
when it is facing a DoS attack.
- Resolution: 2004-02-03
-
Add the following to conformance Section
3, following the third paragraph:
"None of the requirements of this profile, regardless of their
strength, are to be considered as limiting the ability of an otherwise
conforming instance to apply security countermeasures in response to a
real or perceived threat. E.g. a requirement that states that an
instance MUST send a message in response to a request need not be
observed in the face of a DOS." |
er026 |
SOAP 1.1 schema located at
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/ does not allow xml:lang
attribute on the faultstring element |
|
|
- Description
- R1016 requires that receiver must accept fault messages that carry
xml:lang attribute on the faultstring element, but the SOAP 1.1 schema
at http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/ does not allow this
attribute.
- Resolution: 2004-02-10
-
Add a Note following R1016
that reads: Note that this requirement conflicts with the schema for
SOAP appearing at its namespace URL. A schema without conflicts can be
found at 'http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/2004-01-21.xsd'.
|
er027 |
Clarify that wsdl:operation applies to both
binding and portType |
|
|
- Description
- Clarify that
wsdl:operation applies to child of either
wsdl:portType or wsdl:binding .
- Resolution: 2004-02-03
-
Amend wsdl:operation bullet item in the list in Section
5.1.11 to append "(in portType or binding)"
|
er028 |
clarify R1107 |
|
|
- Description
- clarify R1107
- Resolution: 2004-02-03
-
Amend R1107
to read: "A RECEIVER MUST interpret a SOAP message as a Fault when the
soap:Body of the message has a single
soap:Fault child." |
er029 |
Should the schemas for WSDL and SOAP should be
posted at a WS-I URI |
|
|
- Description
- The URIs for the normative WSDL and WSDL SOAP schemas should be
ws-i.org URIs.
- Resolution: 2004-10-25
-
Modify section 5.1.1
WSDL Schema Definitions to read as follows:
The normative schemas for WSDL appearing in Appendix 4 of the WSDL
1.1 specification have inconsistencies with the normative text of the
specification. The Profile references new schema documents that have
incorporated fixes for known errors.
R2028 A DESCRIPTION using the WSDL namespace (prefixed "wsdl" in this
Profile) MUST be valid according to the XML Schema found at
"http://ws-i.org/profiles/basic/1.1/wsdl-2004-08-24.xsd".
R2029 A DESCRIPTION using the WSDL SOAP binding namespace (prefixed
"soapbind" in this Profile) MUST be valid according to the XML Schema
found at
"http://ws-i.org/profiles/basic/1.1/wsdlsoap-2004-08-24.xsd". |
er030 |
clarification of soap:actor extensibility point
description |
|
|
- Description
- Does http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/actor/next count as an
extensibility point?
- Resolution: 2004-02-24
-
Amend the text for the soap:actor extensibility point in
Appendix
II to read: Values of the soap:actor attribute, other
than the special uri "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/actor/next" ,
represent a private agreement between parties of the web service.
|
er032 |
xmlns:xml issue |
|
|
- Description
- Confusion as to whether it is acceptable to have messages and/or
descriptions use the xmlns:xml namespace declaration.
- Resolution: 2004-03-09
-
- Add XML 1.0 reference to BP 1.0 Section
5 list of profiled specs.
- Add Namespaces in XML 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114)
to the list of specs profiled by BP 1.0.
- Add Namespaces in XML 1.0 to BP 1.0 Section
4 list of profiled specs, just below XML 1.0.
- Add Namespaces in XML 1.0 to BP 1.0 Section
5 list of profiled specs, just below XML 1.0.
- Add Namespaces in XML 1.0 to BP 1.0 Appendix
I, just below XML 1.0.
-
Add the following two requirements after BP 1.0 Section
4.1.8:
R1033: An ENVELOPE SHOULD NOT contain the namespace declaration
xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace". [c]
R1034: A DESCRIPTION SHOULD NOT contain the namespace declaration
xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace". [c]
Although published errata NE05 (see http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-names-19990114-errata)
allows this namespace declaration to appear, some older processors
considered such a declaration to be an error. These requirements ensure
that conformant artifacts have the broadest interoperability possible.
|
er033 |
R1000 contains an ambiguous term/target 'Message
contains a soap:Fault' |
|
|
- Description
- R1000 talks about a 'MESSAGE contains a
soap:Fault ' and
not about SOAP Envelopes that are Faults.
- Resolution: 2004-03-17
-
Replace R1000
with the following:
R1000 When an ENVELOPE is a Fault, the soap:Fault
element MUST NOT have element children other than faultcode,
faultstring, faultactor and detail. |
er034 |
R2027 is hard to understand |
|
|
- Description
- R2027 is hard to understand.
- Resolution: 2004-03-18
-
Amend R2027
to read as follows:
R2027 If during the processing of a description, a consumer
encounters a WSDL extension element that has a
wsdl:required attribute with a boolean value of "true" that
the consumer does not understand or cannot process, the CONSUMER MUST
fail processing. |
er035 |
Part accessors local name of rpc-literal
binding |
|
|
- Description
- Section 5.6.20 does not specify the value of the part accessors
local names.
- Resolution: 2004-03-18
-
Change the section title for Section
5.6.20 to "Part Accessors". Add the following requirement to Section
5.6.20:
R2755 The part accessor elements in a MESSAGE described with an
rpc-literal binding MUST have a local name of the same value as the name
attribute of the corresponding wsdl:part element.
|
er036 |
Incorrect namespace prefixes in R2742 and
R2743 |
|
|
- Description
- Incorrect namespace prefixes in R2742 and R2743.
- Resolution: 2004-03-18
-
In R2742,
change wsdl:fault to soapbind:fault .
In R2743,
change wsdl:headerfault to
soapbind:headerfault . |
er037 |
Section 4.1.3 |
|
|
- Description
- Section 4.1.3 -- 'contain a fault' vs. 'is a fault'
- Resolution: 2004-03-17
-
Replace R1001
with the following:
R1001 When an ENVELOPE is a Fault, the element children of the
soap:Fault element MUST be
unqualified. |
er038 |
Messages encoded in both UTF-8 and UTF-16 and
UDDI |
|
|
- Description
- Section 6 of Basic Profile 1.0 says that -- "Note that the Web
services that constitute UDDI V2 are not fully conformant with the
Profile 1.0 because they do not accept messages encoded in both UTF-8
and UTF-16 as required by the Profile. (They accept UTF-8 only.) " This
should really say that the message is encoded in either UTF-8 or UTF-16.
- Resolution: 2005-09-06
-
Replace the following sentence in Section
6:
Note that the Web services that constitute UDDI V2 are not fully
conformant with the Profile 1.0 because they do not accept messages
encoded in both UTF-8 and UTF-16 as required by the Profile.
with:
Note that the Web services that constitute UDDI V2 are not fully
conformant with the Profile 1.0 because they do not accept messages
encoded in either UTF-8 or UTF-16 as required by the
Profile. |
er039 |
WSDL SOAP binding schema does not allow parts
attribute on the soapbind:body element to be empty |
|
|
- Description
- The WSDL SOAP binding schema represented by the soapbind namespace
prefix does not allows the parts attribute of the
soapbind:body element to be empty. I.e., <soapbind:body
parts=""/> Such an empty attribute is required to indicate that none
of the message parts are bound to soap:Body .
- Resolution: 2005-10-25
-
Modify the schema to for soapbind namespace as follows:
-
Add a new type: <xs:simpleType name="tParts">
<xs:list itemType="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
<xs:simpleType>
-
Change the type of the 'parts' attribute of complexType tBody to
tParts as follows: <xs:complexType name="tBody" >
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:extension base="wsdl:tExtensibilityElement" >
<xs:attribute name="parts" type="soapbind:tParts" use="optional" />
<xs:attributeGroup ref = "soapbind:tBodyAttributes" />
<xs:extension>
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:complexType>
|