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

RE: [DR008] - passing arbitrary content

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 15:48:09 -0800
Message-ID: <004301c06171$54d7a030$308f3b9d@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <dick@8760.com>, "David E. Cleary" <davec@progress.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> 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.

Could you please define what you mean by 'local reference' - we only use URIs
as identifiers and have no requirement to that the recipient does with
identifiers (or even knows what 'local' means). I am sorry if I missed your
list of issues - I can't find them in this thread?

> > 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
> could
> cause a problem for "signed data".

Yes, this is in fact an issue which is listed on the SOAP issues list:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/general/soapspec_issues.asp

listed from

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/soap/

Thanks,

Henrik
Received on Friday, 8 December 2000 18:48:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT