I absolutely agree.  What I have discovered in the last two days is that
most of the services have some degree noncompliance issue with v1.1.  Like
not resolving the namespaces in the arrayType attribute value for instance.
My proposal is based on the initialization of interop and has nothing to do
with any ongoing maintenance. What I think is dangerous is publishing a
document like states "X" requirements for interop in specific terms.

As you know, when testing a commercial grade product you're going to run a
predefined set of test scripts against the product to ensure an alpha level
of QC.  In this case, if the test scripts are comprehensive enough then we
can ensure the level of interoperability (as a direct function of the level
compliance to v1.1 which is a derivative of the QC of the test scripts).

Dropping the techspeak, I think we're saying the same thing.
Interoperability is only a function of compliance to v1.1.  I think
comprehensive scripted testing is the only "sure-fire" way to ascertain the
level of compliance, e.g., the interoperability.  Applications that are not
conforming in one manner or another then can use the matrix for the fixes.
New developers would use the matrix to plan their development efforts.

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@[...]..]
>  Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 9:09 AM
>  To: soapbuilders@[...].com
>  Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG (was : some
>  questions/observations re: BDG)
> 
> 
>  That would be useful but what worries me is that it might
>  become necessary.  If everyone were truly interop'ing nicely
>  then we wouldn't need that matrix, you could connect up to
>  anyone who claims to support your service and just run.  If
>  the server on the other side doesn't support something you're
>  sending (like mustunderstand headers) then you shouldn't have
>  to check a matrix first, the server should just fault (ie. not
>  lie).
> 
>  -Dug
> 
>  ps. For those, like me, who couldn't figure it out
>       E&O==Errors and Omissions.  8-)
> 
> 
>  "Matt Long" <mlong@[...]..> on 04/02/2001 09:49:52 AM
> 
>  Please respond to soapbuilders@[...].com
> 
>  To:   <soapbuilders@[...].com>
>  cc:
>  Subject:  RE: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG (was : some
>        questions/observations re: BDG)
> 
> 
> 
>   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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
> 
> 
>           Click Here to Find Software Faster
> 
>           Click Here to Find Software Faster
> 
> 
> 
>           [IMAGE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  soapbuilders-unsubscribe@[...].com
> 
> 
> 
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>  ---------------------~-~>
>  Secure your servers with 128-bit SSL encryption!
>  Grab your copy of VeriSign's FREE Guide,
>  "Securing Your Web site for Business." Get it now!
>  http://us.click.yahoo.com/KVNB7A/e.WCAA/bT0EAA/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/