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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:28:47 +0200
To: <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEMGIMAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Dennis,

RFC2518 hasn't forbidden a DOCTYPE so far, and as far as I can tell, this
never has caused an interop problem. So please let's stay focused in
identifying only those things that are broken.

What the spec should say is that a recipient MUST NOT attempt to validate a
message (either using a hard-wired DTD or a DOCTYPE declaration when
present). You are right that section 4.4 currently doesn't state this, so
this should be put onto the issues list (-> Jason, listening? :-).

Regards, Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dennis E. Hamilton
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 8:17 PM
> To: Julian Reschke; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Ignoring Versus Not Validating <!DOCTYPE ...>
>
>
>
> 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
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-04.txt>,
> section 4.4).
>
> > ...
>
> Julian
>
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 13 October 2003 14:28:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT