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

RE: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarati on and PIs in SOAP)

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 20:57:37 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E401736B6C@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 5:27 PM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc 
> type declarati
> on and PIs in SOAP)


 
>  my spec can say "legal documents will only have prime 
> numbers in the  <prime> tag.  That seems to be a fine application-specific

> restriction on  XML, and is surely one that neither DTDs nor schemas can
capture.

 
> So, I don't see why every application of XML has to define a 
> meaning for  every construct that the XML specifications makes available, 
> except to explicitly prohibit those that it does not allow. 

I agree.  If I appeared to say anything to the contrary, I was being obtuse
and/or pedantic.   

> 
> I agree with Andrew Layman that PI might be worth 
> reconsidering, but we  would have to be careful to define its
significance.  Is it 
> associated  with a nearby header entry?  Can it affect SOAP processing?   
> In short, just allowing it adds some complexity.

Right.  I have no objection to PIs in the body of a SOAP message (hmm, but
PIs aren't necessarily associated with any particular element, right?) but
would object if any PI could affect the SOAP processing.  
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 20:57:39 GMT

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