W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2000

RE: [DR008] - passing arbitrary content

From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 15:11:48 -0800
Message-ID: <C3729BBB6099B344834634EC67DE4AE1348FB6@red-msg-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Frankly, I think that the prohibition against PIs in SOAP was overkill.  If
this prohibition were omitted from XP, the issue of "scrubbing" them would

Regarding a document with a doctypedecl, this is a problem for any embedding
mechanism, since the doctypedecl may only validly appear in the prolog of
the document.  See http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210#NT-prolog .

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@8760.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 7:51 PM
To: David E. Cleary; xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: RE: [DR008] - passing arbitrary content

David Cleary wrote:
> Not necessarily. I'm sure you are familiar with the Soap with Attachments
> paper Henrik and others authored. The URI reference can refer to
> other MIME
> parts in the document directly, and will probably be the way it is used
> mostly.

I agree, if XP URI references are constrained to "local only" then none of
the issues I
raised will exist. Is it the groups consensus to constrain URI's to local
references only? If not then we will need to deal with the issues I listed.

> XML Schemas does not suffer from this limitation, so encoding an XML
> document for use within an XP PDU is not required.

I agree, however SOAP has restrictions against certain "legal" XML
content from appearing in a SOAP message, ref: section 3 of SOAP
spec states:

"A SOAP message MUST NOT contain a Document Type Declaration.
 A SOAP message MUST NOT contain Processing Instructions. [7]"

This means any XML document containing PI's or DOCTYPE's must be
"scrubbed" (or base64 encoded) before being placed in a SOAP:Body. Scrubbing
cause a problem for "signed data".

> requires a change to XML itself. I use the term indirect to mean
> referencing
> binary data contained outside of the XP envelope, and feel that
> without this
> functionality, I can not support XP moving forward. So are we agreeing?

We are in agreement. I believe the ebXML approach for carrying binary and
"complete XML" payloads could easily integrate with SOAP/XP and this
provides the functionality many people are requesting.

Dick Brooks
Group 8760
110 12th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Fax: 205-250-8057

InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions
Received on Friday, 8 December 2000 18:12:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:11 UTC