W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2003

Re: [xmlProfiles-29] xml subsetting in IETF XMPP

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 21:01:56 +0200
Message-ID: <176276705328.20030401210156@w3.org>
To: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
CC: (wrong string) <fabrice.desre@francetelecom.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, <www-tag@w3.org>

On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, 8:44:11 PM, Noah wrote:

NMCI> I >>think< this means that XMPP has chosen a usage convention
NMCI> for XML that's pretty much identical to the one chosen by SOAP.

I think so too - no internal or external DTD subsets, no PI, no
comments.

Interesting that they are both protocol-level usages of XML.

NMCI> XMPP may have been influenced by SOAP, but I have no reason to
NMCI> believe the reverse is true. Perhaps we came to the same
NMCI> conclusion independently?

That would be interesting.

NMCI> (I still prefer the term "usage convention" to "subset" insofar
NMCI> as I am not aware of any intention on the part of Soap designers
NMCI> or XMLP to define any sort of general purpose subset of
NMCI> XML...the intention was to never send soap messages that use XML
NMCI> features inappropriate to our needs, and therefore to allow the
NMCI> opportunity for SOAP receivers to optimize accordingly should
NMCI> they choose to do so. Whether or not to use a general purpose
NMCI> SOAP parser at a SOAP receiver is an implementation choice at
NMCI> that receiver. Yes, an implementation choosing to use such a
NMCI> general purpose parser must ensure that no proscribed
NMCI> constructions have been used.)

This sounds fine until the conformant behavior on getting a message
with a PI, a comment, a DOCTYPE is defined, and put in the test suite.

-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 14:02:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:17 GMT