A typical dialog between my collegues

Can you imagine, if I stay in this field for 5 years, maybe I will act like "John"...? I am on my way to become a computer freak??? kuocl - ic, so I don't need to cover this feature in my test case, right? John - Nope, it is fully tested by the autobuild test cases that use it. John - There should be tests that it does NOT work on an image running on a box. John - Indeed, that's part of a larger class of tests. You should test that extra elements and attributes are ignored by all the WS-RM SOAP methods and SOAP header elements. It's all supposed to be extensible. Not that this is a high-priority test. kuocl - John I am kind of confused about your last sentence. cannot understand what "part of larger class", "extra elements and attributes are ignored by all the WS-RM SOAP methods" "Not that this is a high priority test" mean. kuocl - sorry, a little technical for me to understand. John - All of the control messages between machines speaking WS-RM are in SOAP, which is (of course) in XML. For instance, . See the definition of this on page 17 of the specificiation. Note the ... all over the place. What they are saying is that you are free to extend the protocol by putting a XML element inside the , and the recipient should just ignore them if they aren't understood. This is what all the XPATH expressions with "any" in them, like the one at line 544, and the one at line 599, are expressing. The one at line 544 is about adding an attribute, it's valid to do http://localhost:900/. John - The one at line 599 is the one that allows inside . John - We won't emit any extensions, but if Microsoft were to send a message with such an extension, we should silently ignore the extension. John - Note however, that this extensibility is NOT universal in SOAP. There is the MustUnderstand attribute in a SOAP header, and you will see some requirements about that in the specification. For instance, headers must have MustUnderstand, so they would be , so that you can't have them accidentally ignored. John - (Not sure about the capitalization of MustUnderstand.) kuocl - your point is to make sure that box can handle extended elements and attributes correctly, if no mustUnderstand="1" specified, which means box just ignore those elements and attributes. John - As for not high priority, I mean that these are tests I'd leave to the end of the project. There's almost no chance it doesn't work right, there are more important than this. John - Right, but mustUnderstand only applies at the level of elements that are direct children of . So has the SOAP meaning of must understand. But if inside that there was , that mustUnderstand does NOT have any SOAP meaning. kuocl - yeap,