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

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

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 09:45:54 -0400
Message-ID: <3BAB4492.44568C4@Sun.COM>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jacek,

I respectfully disagree, we should keep it at MUST NOT
include DTD or PIs.

The issue is what a SOAP Receiver needs to do to
handle the exceptional case when a non-compliant
SOAP client sends a message that includes either 
or both.

Cheers,

Chris

Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> 
>  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 09:45:56 GMT

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