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 6392 - Transfer-GetResponse violates WS-I BP
Summary: Transfer-GetResponse violates WS-I BP
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: WS-Resource Access
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Transfer (show other bugs)
Version: FPWD
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Doug Davis
QA Contact: notifications mailing list for WS Resource Access
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/p...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 6393 6394 6395 (view as bug list)
Depends on: 6413
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-01-13 23:58 UTC by Doug Davis
Modified: 2009-03-12 00:20 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Doug Davis 2009-01-13 23:58:14 UTC
WS-Transfer allows for multiple children in the SOAP Body of the 
GetResponse. The description of the GetResponse has the following (bolding 
is mine): 
/s:Envelope/s:Body/child::*[position()=1] 

The representation itself MUST be the initial child element of the 
SOAP:Body element of the response message. The presence of subsequent 
child elements is service-specific and MAY be controlled by the presence 
or extension-specific SOAP headers in the original request. 

The implication is that multiple children may appear.  It is worth noting 
that the WSDL/XSD of the specification only allows for one child - 
however, in terms of precedence, the normative text overrides the WSDL/XSD 
- as noted in section 2.4: 
Normative text within this specification takes precedence over normative 
outlines, which in turn takes precedence over the XML Schema and WSDL 
descriptions. 

WS-I Basic Profile has the following requirement: 
R9981 An ENVELOPE MUST have exactly zero or one child elements of the 
soap:Body element. 

Proposal:
Align the text of the GetResponse message with the WSDL/XSD by removing 
the text that implies more than one child my appear.
Comment 1 Doug Davis 2009-01-14 17:38:59 UTC
6393-6395 are dups of this - same issue different messages.
this issue should include those messages as well.
Comment 2 Doug Davis 2009-01-14 17:39:16 UTC
*** Bug 6393 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Doug Davis 2009-01-14 17:39:35 UTC
*** Bug 6394 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Doug Davis 2009-01-14 17:39:47 UTC
*** Bug 6395 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Robert Freund 2009-03-03 12:22:29 UTC
proposed to CWNA on 2009-02-28 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0151.html
Comment 6 Robert Freund 2009-03-04 12:00:15 UTC
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/9/03/2009-03-03.html#6392
CWNA