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: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:37:27 -0700
Message-ID: <C3729BBB6099B344834634EC67DE4AE102623B1B@red-msg-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I suggest that issue 4 should be split into two distinct issues, one to
deal with PIs and the other with DTDs.

Permitting Processing Instructions is pretty safe provided that readers
are allowed to ignore them (at the reader's discretion).  Given the
definition of Processing Instruction at
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210, section 2.6, this is a safe
reading.

My motivation to permit PIs is primarily that the XML Protocol should be
able to carry XML documents as body content without rewriting whenever
possible.  Since some documents may have PIs in them, and since scanning
all content to remove PIs is expensive, allowing them is better both
from the standpoint of efficiency and document fidelity.

The cost/benefit analysis is very different for DTDs. A DTD is
substantially more complicated to parse.  It may make Infoset
contributions, making skipping one unsafe.  Permitting DTDs in messages
is either pointless (if no infoset contributions are made) or expensive
(if Infoset contributions appear).
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 15:39:09 GMT

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