Bingo !
That's exactly what I've been driving at, i.e., the testing needs to be
richer.  Attempting to create a subset of v1.1 in the BDG *is* not a good a
idea.  Reporting the comprehensive testing results against a variability
matrix works, because the SOAP developer and utilize the matrix to determine
the best fit for his needs.  This way the BDG is avoids *any* potential
E&Os.

Doug, is this inline with your thoughts?

-Matt

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@[...]..]
>  Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 8:42 AM
>  To: soapbuilders@[...].com
>  Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG (was : some
>  questions/observations re: BDG)
> 
> 
>  Dave wrote:
>  >>>(the BDG spec could of course spell it out: "if an implementation
>  >receives something that is valid SOAP, but outside this subset, it
>  >should detect this problem and report it back using the SOAP fault
>  >mechanisms.")
>  >Yes! That's exactly what I was trying to get Jake to tell me.
>  >Jake, take note.
>  >Dave
> 
>  If this includes faulting when a mustUnderstand header is
>  sent then this is good (and alleviates my previous concern).
>  So I think Simon's (was it Simon?) fault tests need to be
>  mandatory.
>  -Dug
> 
> 
>  ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>  ---------------------~-~>
>  Find software faster. Search more than 20,000
>  software solutions on KnowledgeStorm. Register
>  now and get started.
>  http://us.click.yahoo.com/HTDXJD/uMSCAA/zf4EAA/WNqXlB/TM
>  --------------------------------------------------------------
>  -------_->
> 
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  soapbuilders-unsubscribe@[...].com
> 
> 
> 
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/