W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2002

RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:40:32 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E403DED314@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 12:11 PM
> To: Christopher B Ferris
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221
> 
> 
> Receivers (including intermediaries)  receiving an envelope with a PI 
> SHOULD fault with a XXXX fault. 

Does this mean that a PI in the envelope itself SHOULD fault, but that it's
not a SOAP processor's job to care about PIs that may be in the payload of
the message?  Or does it mean that a PI anywhere inside the message
contained within a SOAP envelope should trigger a fault?

I totally agree that PIs should not be used as a "secret handshake" to
affect SOAP processing, and SOAP processors shouldn't have to worry about
preserving secret handshake PIs that they don't understand ... thus avoiding
classic interoperability problems faced by SGML and XML systems that do all
sorts of voodoo with PIs. 

But if we're talking about PIs in the payload somewhere, why should SOAP
care one way or the other?  For example, if the payload of a SOAP message is
an XML document with a PI pointing to a default stylesheet, why is that a
Bad Thing for SOAP?  
Received on Sunday, 25 August 2002 12:40:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT