W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > May 2001

Re: XMLP/SOAP spec - processing instructions

From: Bob Cunnings <cunnings@lectrosonics.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:35:01 -0700
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <3B08EF55.14827.2469D6FA@localhost>

Hello,

Actually *most* implementations do send the "xml declaration"...

I seem to recall a discussion some time ago, maybe on the 
DevelopMentor list, on this topic. The issue was "Is the xml 
declaration really a PI as far as the intent of the prohibition in the
spec is concerned?".

The "xml declaration" is defined separately from PI's in the XML 
spec [1].

It is interesting to note that the examples in the spec don't contain a
prolog element.

RC

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-prolog-dtd

> The XMPL/SOAP spec (as well as the SOAP 1.1 spec) specifically
> prohibits XML processing instructions (sec 3, para 4). I take 
> this to mean that the XML prolog (<?xml ... ?>)is prohibited.
> 
> Questions: 
> 1. What is the rational for this? Can anyone (maybe Henrik or 
> Noah) shed any light on the historical context for this?  
> 2. Can we relax this prohibition in our spec and allow an 
> XML prolog? As long as it is optional I don't think it would
> break any existing applications.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> It seems like it might be useful to convey the XML version
> level (particularly after versions 2.0 and 3.0 come out).
> 
> Also, the prolog can convey the character encoding. This may
> be useful in some situations. I realize that HTTP can carry 
> the encoding in the "Content-Type" header, but other bindings 
> may not have a convenient way to convey this information. 
> 
>   Randy Waldrop
>   webMethods, Inc.
Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 12:35:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT