W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2003

RE: Ignoring Versus Not Validating <!DOCTYPE ...>

From: Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:17:15 -0700
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FFEPLLNFAHGBKNENFGPAIEELDDAA.dennis.hamilton@acm.org>

Thanks, Julian.

I looked at 2518bis-04 and section 4.4 does not speak to the presence or absence of material in XML document headers.  It says that the given DTD (in 24.1 and also throughout the document) is informational and is not meant to be usable for validation of DAV XML 1.0 documents.  [We have already discussed that ANY, as used in the DTD, doesn't accomplish the intended purpose.]

Section 4.4 does not speak to rules for the appearance of <!DOCTYPE ...> or anything else in the XML Prolog and Document Type Declaration [REC-XML section 2.8, 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-prolog-dtd>] for DAV XML documents.

I also checked bis-04 sections 8.1.1, 15, 18.5, 18.6, 19, 24, 24.1, and 24.2 and there does not seem to be anything to resolve this question.  There are mildly contradictory statements in 8.1.1 and 18.6, though. I didn't look elsewhere.

I continue to recommend that the presence of a <!DOCTYPE ...> declaration be forbidden in the XML Prolog of DAV XML in HTTP request bodies and response bodies.  This will also take care of 18.6, since the only way external entities may be declared is in the DTD.

-- Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 13:18
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; Julian Reschke; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: RE: Ignoring Versus Not Validating <!DOCTYPE ...>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dennis E. Hamilton
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 11:31 PM
> To: Julian Reschke; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Ignoring Versus Not Validating <!DOCTYPE ...>
[ ... ]

> 4.	Rather than have so much sensitivity to out-of-band
> nuances, I think it would be cleaner and more interoperable (for
> DAV, not arbitrary XML) to have the DAV application of XML 1.0
> specify that a Document Type Declaration must not be present.
> Then (1) the XML can't be presumed to be validatable, and (2)
> there is no confusion about the validating versus non-validating
> use as there is when one is provided.
> 	Since, as you say, it doesn't seem to be used, it might be
> a good idea to simplify here and say that it is not meant to be.

I think RFC2518bis is saying that (see
section 4.4).

> ...


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 13 October 2003 14:17:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:28 UTC