Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP)

+1

Marc Hadley wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> As the custodian of issue 4 I'd like to propose the following resolution
> and rationale.
> 
> Proposed Resolution:
> 
> A SOAP message MUST NOT contain a Document Type Declaration or
> Processing Instructions. On receipt of a SOAP message containing a
> Document Type Declaration or Processing Instruction a SOAP receiver MUST
> either ignore it or generate a fault (see 4.4 SOAP Fault) with faultcode
> of "Client.DTD" or "Client.PI" respectively.
> 
> Rationale:
> 
> In discussions [1,2] there is near universal antipathy towards allowing
> DTDs in SOAP messages. The attitude towards PIs is somewhat less
> negative, but is still broadly in favour of exclusion. This maintains
> the current status-quo inherited from SOAP 1.1.
> 
> Issue 4 relates to the action a SOAP receiver should take on receipt of
> a message which includes a DTD or PIs. My original suggestion for
> resolution[1] was to require the SOAP receiver to generate a fault on
> receipt of such a message but this was felt to impose an unecessary
> burden on receivers.
> 
> An alternative resolution[3] suggested relaxation of my original
> proposal such that receivers SHOULD ignore DTDs and PIs and MAY generate
> a fault but this formulation leaves open the possibility of having a
> compliant SOAP processor that doesn't ignore DTDs and PIs and doesn't
> generate a fault which I don't think is the desired behaviour.
> 
> In the spirit of a friendly amendment to the preceeding suggestion I
> propose to give implementations the option of either ignoring DTDs and
> PIs or generating a fault on their receipt.
> 
> Comments ?
> 
> Marc.
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001May/0367.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0159.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0167.html
> 
> --
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.