This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 11766 - Transfer: create/put text is a bit unclear on schema validation
Summary: Transfer: create/put text is a bit unclear on schema validation
Status: CLOSED REMIND
Alias: None
Product: WS-Resource Access
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Transfer (show other bugs)
Version: CR
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: notifications mailing list for WS Resource Access
QA Contact: notifications mailing list for WS Resource Access
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: hasProposal
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-01-14 20:07 UTC by Doug Davis
Modified: 2011-09-13 21:30 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments
a proposal (248.00 KB, application/msword)
2011-02-01 19:43 UTC, Doug Davis
Details
proposal #2 (248.50 KB, application/msword)
2011-02-01 22:36 UTC, Doug Davis
Details
Proposal (246.50 KB, application/octet-stream)
2011-02-04 23:45 UTC, Ram Jeyaraman
Details
#3 (249.50 KB, application/msword)
2011-02-15 18:37 UTC, Doug Davis
Details

Description Doug Davis 2011-01-14 20:07:15 UTC
Right now the spec is a bit contorted when it comes to Put and Create.
It talks about using the coming XML (or empty XML) as the new representation
of the resource.  And then in a separate paragraph talks about doing
schema validation.  This could be misread to imply that you MUST update/create
the resource with an invalid representation - or that we have two conflicting
MUSTs.

We need to fix the text to make it clear that the incoming XML
should be checked against the representation's allowable schema(s) and
only be updated if it passes that test (assuming of course schema validation
checking is done at all - which is optional).

a proposal should be coming soon...
Comment 1 Robert Freund 2011-01-25 21:10:55 UTC
Agreed that support for empty resources are not required
Comment 2 Doug Davis 2011-02-01 19:43:46 UTC
Created attachment 949 [details]
a proposal

Made it clear that an empty constructor is just a request to create
an empty resource, and not something that MUST be supported.

Both Put and Create had similar text - so I aligned them since they
same concept applies to both.
Comment 3 Doug Davis 2011-02-01 22:36:32 UTC
Created attachment 950 [details]
proposal #2

New proposal based on Gil's suggested wording tweak
Comment 4 Ram Jeyaraman 2011-02-04 23:45:51 UTC
Created attachment 952 [details]
Proposal

I like with the general direction of the proposal attached to comment #3. I suggest the following additions.

In the description of wst:Put/wst:Representation and wst:Create/wst:Representation, I suggest adding "If an implementation does not support the case where this element has no children, it MUST generate a wst:InvalidRepresentation fault".

The revised proposal is attached.
Comment 5 Doug Davis 2011-02-15 18:37:58 UTC
Created attachment 956 [details]
#3
Comment 6 Robert Freund 2011-02-15 18:55:00 UTC
resolved as proposed in comment 5