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 12:22:23 -0500
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: mgudgin@microsoft.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA7E264F4.47D69D3F-ON85256C87.005DAB99@lotus.com>

OK, I think we've reached closure.  Summary of status:

* I've been more or less convinced of the arguments that you and Gudge 
have put forward that when you check all the details we probably are not 
legalistically in trouble.

* I still think the reasoning is a bit subtle, and that the issue would be 
more clearly nailed with a clarifying note.

* Given that there hasn't been much agreement expressed with my concern in 
bullet #2, I'm willing to let it go, unless there's a sudden upsurge in 
support (hint, hint).  I do agree we have to put this to bed in the next 
few days, one way or the other.

Unless I hear to the contrary, I'll assume we're all set and that you now 
have my (somewhat reluctant) concurrence to the resolution of 395.  Thanks 
to all for your patience with my concerns.

------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
12/06/02 11:11 AM

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





>"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."

Yes, that's correct, it should be DTD and not DTD II.

>  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?

The media type is explicitly defined as the serialization of a SOAP
message infoset and not just any old XML. This limitation prohibits a
<!DOCTYPE> for all legal uses of the media type.

>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.

Note that the qualification of the 2nd sentence explicitly mentions
bindings *using* the "application/soap+xml" media type. The point is
that a serialization using this media type can not include a DTD
regardless of which binding it is. In short, if bindings (including the
HTTP binding) want to do tricks with DTDs then they can't use the
"application/soap+xml" media type. The purpose of the sentence is to
clarify this separation.

Henrik
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 12:25:53 GMT

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