Cameron Laird's personal notes on WSDL validation

Yes, yes, I know, in principle all WSDL instances are outputs of automatic processes, and therefore need no validation (compare, though, "WSDL first"). I'll summarize my own experience: I frequently find value in validation of a WSDL, that is, I frequently am involved in invalid WSDL instances.

Available validators impress me far less as an ensemble than the glowing descriptions I've found of them. Here are my own notes on the only ones I've found worth consideration:

• On-line (that is, implemented as Web applications):
  • the XMethods on-line validator is far, far too permissive, and its "drill-down" reports much less depth and breadth than it might or than I think it should. Yes, I'm aware that a comment on Stack Overflow, for example, asserts, "This site is good ..." It's not--at least not for the purpose of WSDL validation.
  • the eXtc WSDL Validator is quite weak; I haven't figured out yet what it (in)validates.
• Installable:
  • I've rapidly become fond of Actional Diagnostics 8. For the purpose of WSDL validation, it's simply an update of SOAPscope--except that it's available without a fee! While I still pine for a command-line interface and/or a (more) Web-based application, Actional Diagnostics gives a lot of value.
  • Mindreef's SOAPscope 2.0 includes a quality Analyzer. While I often felt lost during initial installation, and re-analysis requires two to four mouse clicks, I have found SOAPscope valuable, if expensive, in this role.
  • While there's a lot to like about soapUI, I never did figure out how to ask it to "Check WSI Compliance", and my attempts to install the named compliance tools all failed. Slightly perturbed WSDL instances resulted in diagnostics no more illuminating than "java.lang.NullPointerException".
  • pocketSOAP's validator depends on zvon, which, as of this writing, returns only error pages.