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

Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP)

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:27:00 +0200 (CEST)
To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110011020490.2598-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Marc,
 I'd just like to restate here that XML requires some DTD
processing to be done even by non-validating parsers, so ignoring
internal DTDs would violate XML processing rules.
 To Paul Denning's wording: "MAY generate a fault"
indicates that the message can be silently tossed to a black
hole, which seems wrong. I think that since the parser has to
check now anyway (to know it MUST NOT process the message) it can
as well always generate a fault. So I propose this little tweak
of Paul's version:

 A SOAP message MUST NOT contain a Document Type Declaration or
Processing Instructions. On receipt of a SOAP message containing
a Document Type Declaration or Processing Instruction a SOAP
receiver MUST NOT process the SOAP message at all, and MUST
generate a fault (see 4.4 SOAP Fault) with faultcode of
"Client.DTD" or "Client.PI" respectively.

 Please let's remember that generating a fault doesn't
necessarily mean sending the fault message anywhere (e.g. in
cases when there's no anywhere to send it).

 Best regards

                            Jacek Kopecky

                            Idoox
                            http://www.idoox.com/



On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Marc Hadley wrote:

 > All,
 >
 > As the custodian of issue 4 I'd like to propose the following resolution
 > and rationale.
 >
 > Proposed Resolution:
 >
 > A SOAP message MUST NOT contain a Document Type Declaration or
 > Processing Instructions. On receipt of a SOAP message containing a
 > Document Type Declaration or Processing Instruction a SOAP receiver MUST
 > either ignore it or generate a fault (see 4.4 SOAP Fault) with faultcode
 > of "Client.DTD" or "Client.PI" respectively.
 >
 > Rationale:
 >
 > In discussions [1,2] there is near universal antipathy towards allowing
 > DTDs in SOAP messages. The attitude towards PIs is somewhat less
 > negative, but is still broadly in favour of exclusion. This maintains
 > the current status-quo inherited from SOAP 1.1.
 >
 > Issue 4 relates to the action a SOAP receiver should take on receipt of
 > a message which includes a DTD or PIs. My original suggestion for
 > resolution[1] was to require the SOAP receiver to generate a fault on
 > receipt of such a message but this was felt to impose an unecessary
 > burden on receivers.
 >
 > An alternative resolution[3] suggested relaxation of my original
 > proposal such that receivers SHOULD ignore DTDs and PIs and MAY generate
 > a fault but this formulation leaves open the possibility of having a
 > compliant SOAP processor that doesn't ignore DTDs and PIs and doesn't
 > generate a fault which I don't think is the desired behaviour.
 >
 > In the spirit of a friendly amendment to the preceeding suggestion I
 > propose to give implementations the option of either ignoring DTDs and
 > PIs or generating a fault on their receipt.
 >
 > Comments ?
 >
 > Marc.
 >
 > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001May/0367.html
 > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0159.html
 > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0167.html
 >
 >
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 04:27:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT