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

Re: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 09:59:17 +0200 (CEST)
To: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
cc: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109210957110.25011-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Chris,
 if we say that "receivers SHOULD ignore and MAY generate a
fault", IMHO we should also say that "a SOAP message SHOULD NOT
have a DTD or PIs". This would put the same strength of
expressions on both sides of the story.
 I'd +1 this. 8-)

                            Jacek Kopecky

                            Idoox
                            http://www.idoox.com/



On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, christopher ferris wrote:

 > I think that the status quo (a SOAP message MUST NOT have a DTD
 > or PIs) should be preserved. The issue is what to do about
 > them if a (non-compliant) SOAP client sends a message that
 > includes either.
 >
 > As I stated at the f2f, I think that they should be ignored.
 > We shouldn't be imposing that a SOAP server MUST check for
 > these and return a Fault as this adds unnecessary complexity,
 > especially for PIs.
 >
 > What we could say is that a SOAP Receiver SHOULD ignore a DTD
 > or PI in a SOAP message and that they MAY send a Fault (which should
 > be defined should we go down this path).
 >
 > A SOAP implementation that can not handle DTDs can exclude
 > them relatively easily. Whether it chooses to send a fault would
 > be implementation dependent.
 >
 > Cheers,
 >
 > Chris
 >
 > Marc Hadley wrote:
 > >
 > > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
 > > >
 > > >  I couldn't find it in archives (because the search engine
 > > > returned nothing at all), so I'll ask:
 > > >  What are the reasons for disallowing document type declaration
 > > > and processing instructions in SOAP? Will we keep the
 > > > restrictions in SOAP version 1.2? As it is now, SOAP grammar is a
 > > > subset of XML.
 > > >
 > > We discussed this at the recent F2F in relation to issue 4 which raises
 > > the question of what a receiver should do on receipt of a message
 > > containing a PI or DTD. I have an pending action to re-raise this issue
 > > - consider it raised !
 > >
 > > There seems to be two opinions on the subject of DTDs and PIs:
 > >
 > > (i) Allowing them increases complexity and doesn't bring any particular
 > > benefit, the only compelling argument for allowing PIs was so that a
 > > stylesheet could be associated with a message for human viewing.
 > >
 > > (ii) Adding them doesn't add much to the complexity, they are part of
 > > XML so we should allow them.
 > >
 > > My original suggestion for resolution of issue 4 was to retain their
 > > current status (i.e. not allowed) and add text requiring a SOAP
 > > processor to generate a fault when a message containing one was received.
 > >
 > > Others felt that if present they should be ignored but this might prove
 > > difficult in the case of DTDs with current parsers.
 > >
 > > Discussion ?
 > >
 > > Regards,
 > > Marc.
 > >
 > > --
 > > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
 > > XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
 >
Received on Friday, 21 September 2001 03:59:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT