Hannu Krosing wrote:
>cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com kirjutas N, 03.04.2003 kell 02:01:
>
>
>>mlw wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think you are interpreting the spec a bit too restrictively. The
>>>syntax is fairly rigid, but the spec has a great degree of flexibility.
>>>I agree that, syntactically, it must work through a parser, but there is
>>>lots of room to be flexible.
>>>
>>>
>>This is /exactly/ the standard problem with SOAP.
>>
>>There is enough "flexibility" that there are differing approaches
>>associated, generally speaking, with "IBM versus Microsoft" whereby it's
>>easy to generate SOAP requests that work fine with one that break with
>>the other.
>>
>>
>
>Do you know of some:
>
>a) standard conformance tests
>
Off the top of my head, no, but I bet it is a goole away. If you know
any good links, I'd love to know. I have been working off the W3C spec.
>
>b) recommended best practices for being compatible with all mainstream
>implementations (I'd guess a good approach would be to generate very
>strictly conformant code but accept all that you can, even if against
>pedantic reading of the spec)
>
I have been planning to "test" the whole thing with a few .NET
applications. I am currently using expat to parse the output to ensure
that it all works correcty.
>
>
>
>
>
