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

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

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:57:44 -0400
To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7BB545AE.1C75FD4A-ON85256ACD.006CE470@lotus.com>
I can't speak to the reasons why they were originally left out, but there 
are real performance costs in dealing with things like DTDs in a web 
services environment.  We are in many cases competing with systems that 
are binary rather than text based.  Whether the cost is significant 
depends on the sort of parsing you are doing, the message rates you are 
trying to sustain, etc., but simple is good.  Even features like 
namespaces, which cause you not to know the name of an element until you 
have put together all of its attributes (namespace decls) have their 
costs.   Namespaces are worth it, IMO;  internal subset DTD's are a 
complication we don't need IMO. 

I think PI's are relatively cheap, but I think the complicate the model, 
and I'm not sure we need them.   Is a PI part of the header entry in which 
it occurs.   Must it be "understood" by the processing model?  All this 
seems like unmotivated complexity.  Just because it's available in XML 
doesn't mean we have to encourage its use, I think  (I do think there 
should be ways to carry complete XML documents in a SOAP document, but 
PI's and internal subsets are only a small piece of that problem.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 21 September 2001 11:06:11 GMT

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