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: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:51:57 -0400
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF40913D08.EA5D1D8A-ON85256AD8.00524913@lotus.com>
>>  Oh, the sentence "since SOAP message MUST NOT 
>> contain DTDs in the first place then it would 
>> be OK for a processor to ignore one
>> if present" feels a bit weird. 8-) But I think 
>> it can be a good enough explanation for the 
>> compromise.

I could not make the face to face, but I disagree with the conclusion 
apparently reached there.  I think DTD's should not be allowed, and I 
think conforming SOAP processors should be required to reject rather than 
process messages containing them.   As Jacek noted or implied, processing 
the message while ignoring the DTD violates XML 1.0.  Furthermore, it 
encourages unsafe processing of messages...I might have defined an entity 
or set an attribute default that makes the message unsafe to interpret 
without understanding the DTD.  That's serious.  Finally, it encourages 
interop problems, as some processors will and others won't process the 
message.  I think this is a serious mistake for all of those reasons.

IMHO, there is nothing we can or should do to prevent the occasional 
implementation of non-conforming processors that cheat a bit for reasons 
of space, but we should not condone or bless them with some implication 
that they are conforming after all.  Conformance should prohibit 
processing of any message containing a DTD.  What yo do when you're not 
conforming should be at your own risk. 

Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 14:34:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:16 UTC