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

RE: Closing XML Protocol Last Call issue 395

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:07:23 -0800
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02D30A88@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

So the question really is this:

Does <!DOCTYPE soap:Envelope [ <!-- entitity decls here --> ]> ( i.e.
JUST an internal subset ) result in a a Document Type Declaration
Information Item appearing at the infoset level? My reading of Section
2.8 the infoset spec says Yes.

Gudge


> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 05 December 2002 11:44
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Closing XML Protocol Last Call issue 395
> 
> 
> Gudge writes:
> 
> > I'm not sure why this issues revolves around the
> > internal subset. We explicitly prohibit the Document
> > Type Declaration Information Item from appearing.
> 
> So far, so good.  We agree.
> 
> >> If there is no DTD then there is no internal
> >> or external subset. 
> 
> Let's be a little careful.  Our infosets are synthetic.  They 
> come before 
> the lexical form is even considered.  Clearly we disallow the 
> info item. 
> What this means for any possible serialization in any 
> possible binding is 
> unclear.
> 
> > Lexically one cannot have <!DOCTYPE ... in a SOAP message.
> 
> Now we're talking about something binding specific.  Assume 
> we're talking 
> about >the< SOAP HTTP binding. 
> 
> >> The only parts of the DTD that are reflected
> >> in the infoset are unparsed entities, notations 
> >> and PIs appearing the in DTD.
> 
> Right, so if I had a lexical form with an internal subset declaring a 
> parsed entity, then that would not show up in the Infoset 
> when I parsed 
> the document.  I couldn't tell that there had been an 
> internal or external 
> subset.
> 
> Now, go the other way.  We say in the HTTP binding that we want 
> (indirectly through RFC 3203) the XML 1.x serialization of 
> the infoset. 
> But if what I say in the para above is right (and I'm not 
> sure about it), 
> that's ambiguous.  There are at lexical forms with internal 
> subset that 
> correspond to the Infoset that has no DTD information item.  
> That is the 
> source of my concern.  If there is even a hint of this 
> ambiguity, I think 
> our binding (or the RFC if appropriate) needs to say explicitly: 
> "<!DOCTYPE ... > MUST NOT appear."
> 
> I feel like I may be confused, but in the meantime, I remain 
> concerned 
> that there is an ambiguity.  If someone sent an instance with 
> internal 
> subset, but that parsed into an Infoset with no Doctype Info 
> Item, I'd not 
> sure where I'd point in the spec to say "you broke the 
> rules."  What am I 
> missing?  Thanks.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 17:07:55 GMT

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