Hello,

This is a very necessary capability. Great care was taken here to
have the processor validate all namespace prefixes embedded in
attribute values containing qnames such as 'arrayType'. It's also
necessary to know the correct namespace if you need to resolve
the type in a schema, which I understand is not a requirement for
every implementation. Nevertheless, without resolving such
namespace prefixes, you not really sure you know what the type
really is...

RC

>  Dave,
> 
>  In all but one app I tested.  When the echoStructArray's "arrayType" is set
>  to "xyz:chilidog[3]" the "xyz" is never resolved.  In order words I can pass
>  the Userland app "???:??????[3]" and it still will return the
>  echoStructArray, which should be impossible because the arrayType "???.????"
>  can not be resolved.
> 
>  Pardon me for the obvious, but testing is about defining parameters and I'm
>  sure you would agree.  As Simon so correctly pointed out a few minutes ago,
>  what happens when you pass a method call that doesn't exist.  I don't know
>  across all the applications, but it should be documented such that it can be
>  made consistent in the BDG.
> 
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@[...]..]
>  > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 9:45 PM
>  > To: soapbuilders@[...].com
>  > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG (was : some
>  > questions/observations re: BDG)
>  >
>  >
>  > Sure. I thought we were doing tests..
>  >
>  > What other tests should we do?
>  >
>  > What is "the namespace resolution?"
>  >
>  > Dave
>  >
>  >
>  > ----- Original Message -----
>  > From: "Matt Long" <mlong@[...]..>
>  > To: <soapbuilders@[...].com>
>  > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 7:38 PM
>  > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG (was : some
>  > questions/observations re: BDG)
>  >
>  >
>  > > Dave,
>  > >
>  > > The point is this implementations are not conforming.  The
>  > question begs
>  > > itself as to the 80/20 rule.  The "80 AND the "20" has to
>  > be the same
>  > across
>  > > the board.  "Tested" software is just that, it conforms to
>  > the test.  The
>  > QC
>  > > is a determinant of the provisions of the test. The
>  > community is missing
>  > > important details, like the namespace resolution.  The
>  > problem is the test
>  > > data is incomplete and nonconclusive.  It is an everyone's
>  > best interest
>  > to
>  > > get the required data such that the varability matrix can
>  > be developed.
>  > > THEN the BDG carries much credibility.  BTW, this is a
>  > bunch of work and
>  > > time.  You game?
>  > >
>  > > -Matt
>  > >
>  > > > -----Original Message-----
>  > > > From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@[...]..]
>  > > > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 9:15 PM
>  > > > To: soapbuilders@[...].com
>  > > > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG
>  > (was : some
>  > > > questions/observations re: BDG)
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > I'm baffled.
>  > > >
>  > > > I guess my point is this.
>  > > >
>  > > > My software is scriptable over the Internet.
>  > > >
>  > > > If you want to make your software scriptable over the
>  > > > Internet that would
>  > > > make me happy.
>  > > >
>  > > > What's so complicated about that?
>  > > >
>  > > > Dave
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > ----- Original Message -----
>  > > > From: "Matt Long" <mlong@[...]..>
>  > > > To: <soapbuilders@[...].com>
>  > > > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 7:04 PM
>  > > > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG
>  > (was : some
>  > > > questions/observations re: BDG)
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > > Dave,
>  > > > >
>  > > > > The BDG makes no reference to the resolution of namespaces and
>  > > > specifically
>  > > > > to the documented problem of resolving a namespace in an
>  > > > attribute value.
>  > > > > The problem has reared it's head in all but one of the
>  > > > applications I can
>  > > > > test.  In order to be accurate in the BDG it is my
>  > > > professional opinion
>  > > > that
>  > > > > full scale scripted testing must be done in order to work
>  > > > out the details.
>  > > > > Until we have a variability matrix against all the
>  > > > applications we don't
>  > > > > *know* (literal sense of the word) all the specific
>  > > > details.  And yes I'm
>  > > > > being anal about this because it is important.  I have an
>  > > > estimate on man
>  > > > > hours for this and it is huge.  Working together is still
>  > > > *work*, we just
>  > > > > scaled it ;-).
>  > > > >
>  > > > > -Matt
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>  > > > > > From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@[...]..]
>  > > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 8:43 PM
>  > > > > > To: soapbuilders@[...].com
>  > > > > > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG
>  > > > (was : some
>  > > > > > questions/observations re: BDG)
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > > What's the right answer?
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > > I feel like this is a final exam, either I get it right
>  > > > or I don't. My
>  > > > > > problem is that I don't have a clue about the software you're
>  > > > > > doing. So I
>  > > > > > don't know what you or others would like me to do.
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > > I also wish this question had come up about 3 days ago. ;->
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > > Dave
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>  > > > > > From: <keithba@[...]..>
>  > > > > > To: <soapbuilders@[...].com>
>  > > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 6:39 PM
>  > > > > > Subject: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG
>  > (was : some
>  > > > > > questions/observations re: BDG)
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > > > I'm not sure I feel well enough to do that tonight, but
>  > > > > > will try, but
>  > > > > > > no promises. Also, it will be for nought if I don't
>  > > > know the answer
>  > > > > > > to my question:
>  > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > When the BDG says to do X, does it mean you don't have
>  > > > to accept Y
>  > > > > > > (where Y is perfectly acceptible SOAP, such as a
>  > datatype not
>  > > > > > > mentioned in the BDG)?
>  > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > Corrolary: Will a BDG implementation correctly fault when
>  > > > > > sent a SOAP
>  > > > > > > Header it doesn't understand?
>  > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > --- In soapbuilders@[...]., "Dave Winer" <dave@[...]..> wrote:
>  > > > > > > > OK, thanks for the response, sorry to hear you're not
>  > > > > > feeling well.
>  > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > Maybe we could approach it this way.
>  > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > 1. Could you put a bit of time this evening into a
>  > > > very careful
>  > > > > > > read of the
>  > > > > > > > BDG, and see if you see any reason that it's not
>  > > > conforming to the
>  > > > > > > SOAP 1.1
>  > > > > > > > specification.
>  > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > 2. My understanding is that all Microsoft SOAP
>  > > > > > implementations will
>  > > > > > > conform
>  > > > > > > > to the SOAP 1.1 spec.
>  > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > If you take 1 and 2 together, then we know that
>  > we will have
>  > > > > > > interop betw
>  > > > > > > > software that implements BDG and Microsoft products.
>  > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > So if you could help with #1, I'd sleep better
>  > > > tonight, and then I
>  > > > > > > can put
>  > > > > > > > my mind to work on teaching our script writer friends
>  > > > how to do
>  > > > > > > cool stuff
>  > > > > > > > NEXT WEEK with this stuff.
>  > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > That's the real reason we're doing this. I'm sure
>  > Microsoft is
>  > > > > > > approaching
>  > > > > > > > it the same way. What we're doing here is is the
>  > > > > > necessary overhead
>  > > > > > > work,
>  > > > > > > > the fun really starts when the users' eyes start
>  > > > lighting up with
>  > > > > > > the new
>  > > > > > > > power and choice we're giving them.
>  > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > I honestly believe this will revitalize the economy, make
>  > > > > > Microsoft
>  > > > > > > (and
>  > > > > > > > UserLand) stock prices soar, and people will create
>  > > > apps that we
>  > > > > > > can't dream
>  > > > > > > > of today.
>  > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > Dave
>  > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>  > > > > > > > From: <keithba@[...]..>
>  > > > > > > > To: <soapbuilders@[...]..>
>  > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 6:23 PM
>  > > > > > > > Subject: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG
>  > > > (was : some
>  > > > > > > > questions/observations re: BDG)
>  > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > > I've been thinking this one over quite a bit. I'm not
>  > > > > > feeling well
>  > > > > > > > > this weekend, so my thinking is even slower than usual.
>  > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > > Technically speaking, I just don't know. Partly
>  > > > because I don't
>  > > > > > > know
>  > > > > > > > > the other MS implementations as well as I know my
>  > > > own. I need to
>  > > > > > > do
>  > > > > > > > > some more analysis here. When the BDG says to do X,
>  > > > does it mean
>  > > > > > > you
>  > > > > > > > > don't have to accept Y? (For instance, if I send a
>  > > > datatype not
>  > > > > > > > > listed, will the other implementation crack
>  > under what is
>  > > > > > > otherwise
>  > > > > > > > > perfectly acceptable SOAP?)
>  > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > > But, I think it is compelling to also ask if the
>  > > > BDG is enough
>  > > > > > > for a
>  > > > > > > > > SOAP stacks implementors. I feel that entering
>  > the SOAP game
>  > > > > > > should
>  > > > > > > > > allow for a wide variety of entrances, from very simple
>  > > > > > stacks to
>  > > > > > > > > very complex stacks. However, my fear is that if
>  > > > someone only
>  > > > > > > > > implements the BDG, and doesn't ever implement beyond
>  > > > > > that level,
>  > > > > > > > > they will left out of all the fun stuff that comes
>  > > > later, like
>  > > > > > > > > finding concrete implementations of abstract WSDL
>  > > > > > bindings within
>  > > > > > > > > UDDI, or understanding SOAP Headers that allow for
>  > > > > > contextual flow
>  > > > > > > > > and transaction handling. Or that your stack won't
>  > > > be adopted by
>  > > > > > > > > Company X because they need to interop with
>  > Company Y, and
>  > > > > > > Company Y
>  > > > > > > > > required something outside of what is described
>  > in the BDG.
>  > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > > Lastly, I'm not sure that the BDG will actually get
>  > > > us all to
>  > > > > > > interop
>  > > > > > > > > much more quickly than without the BDG. My experience
>  > > > > > with interop
>  > > > > > > > > has been that interop isn't as much a problem of
>  > > > spec fuzziness
>  > > > > > > > > (although that is surely one roadblock), but one of
>  > > > just plain
>  > > > > > > > > testing. However, I could be very wrong on this
>  > > > point. Also, at
>  > > > > > > the
>  > > > > > > > > very least, the process of creating the BDG has
>  > > > (I'm sure) been
>  > > > > > > very
>  > > > > > > > > illuminating and educational for all involved, and
>  > > > illumination
>  > > > > > > and
>  > > > > > > > > learning is never a bad thing.
>  > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > > Just my 2 cents.
>  > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > > --- In soapbuilders@[...]., "Dave Winer"
>  > <dave@[...]..> wrote:
>  > > > > > > > > > Coool.
>  > > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > > > Thanks for responding.
>  > > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > > > Let me ask a more direct and clear question.
>  > > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > > > Do you forsee any problems with apps that only do the
>  > > > > > subset of
>  > > > > > > > > SOAP 1.1
>  > > > > > > > > > described in the BDG interoperating with
>  > Microsoft's SOAP
>  > > > > > > > > implementations?
>  > > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > > > If so, what are the problems, and how can we
>  > remedy them?
>  > > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > > > Dave
>  > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  > > > > > > > > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@[...]..
>  > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>  > > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>  > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > > >
>  > > > > > >
>  > > > > > >
>  > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > 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/
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > 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/
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > 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/
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > 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/
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 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/
>  >
>  >
> 
> 
> 
>  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/
> 
> 
> 
>  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/
>