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

RE: Closing XML Protocol Last Call issue 395

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 09:57:55 -0500
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: mgudgin@microsoft.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2B98AB55.0A68B539-ON85256C87.0051BC9A@lotus.com>

That's part of it.  The part I would quibble with is the two letters "II". 
 I think we are already very clear that there can't be a doctype info item 
(II) in the message infoset.  I would reword your admonition as:

"If the communicating parties use the SOAP HTTP binding with the 
serialization defined by the application/soap+xml" media type AND there is 
a >> Document Type Declaration (I.e. <!DOCTYPE ...> ) present in the XML for the message,  then either one or both of the 
binding implementation(s) do not follow the rules defined by SOAP's use of 
that media type and hence break the binding specification."

There has never been a question that Doctype II's are prohibited in the 
message infosets at the nodes.  The question has been whether saying that 
is enough to ensure that <!DOCTYPE ...> cannot occur in the serialization. 
  Also, I don't THINK the media type rules out  <!DOCTYPE> in all cases. 
It's restrictions on content are the same as application/xml, I think, 
right?

I left out the second sentence because I specifically think it IS ok for 
other bindings to use the DTD as mechanism on the wire, as long as they 
later put together an infoset in which it is invisible (which may well be 
an infoset that is not the one derived directly from the parse of the 
inbound message, but is a synthetic infoset that takes most of its info 
from the parsed message, but cleans it up to get rid of any vestiges of 
the use of DTDs, entities, etc.

As I said in my last note, Gudge has convinced me that the answer is 
legalistically, gee sort of  almost surely ruled out, and I am willing to 
let this go and live with it if that's the will of the group.  I do think 
a clarification would be helpful, that would be my preference, and the 
text above does capture the spirit of the clarification I would have in 
mind.  It would need some rewording to make it a bit more formal for 
inclusion in the spec, I think.  Thanks!

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
12/05/02 08:24 PM

 
        To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
        cc:     <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        Subject:        RE: Closing XML Protocol Last Call issue 395
Categories: 
 





I realize your concern whether this is actually what we specify but I
think you would agree that we *should* be able to answer the question as
follows:

"If the communicating parties use the SOAP HTTP binding with the
serialization defined by the "application/soap+xml" media type AND there
is a doctype II present then either one or both of the binding
implementation(s) do not follow the rules defined by that media type and
hence break the binding specification. In fact, if the parties use *any*
binding with the serialization defined by the "application/soap+xml"
media type AND there is a doctype II present then the same thing
follows."

>> 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.

Make sense?

Henrik
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 10:01:07 GMT

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