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

RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:42:07 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D08E92195@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>


>The exception is:  I don't think this is the right issue under 
>which to 
>back into allowing PIs in the body.   Thus, I would want to be careful 
>with:
>
>"The Body EII can contain any II that is not explicitly 
>prohibited by this 
>specification."
>
>To make sure we've really ruled everything that we intend to.  

I agree, which is why I was being careful formulating the proposal :)
Thank you for the clarification, though. I take it that your intent is
to call out the separation of concerns, not to propose a change to the
sentence?

>Also, I'm 
>not sure what the normative significance of:
>
>"All such IIs and their values are considered significant."
>
>is.  Leave that sentence out?

The intent is to indicate that a SOAP node must assume that the II
children of the Body are semantically significant in order to properly
understand the contents of the Body EII.

FWIW, we have a similar statement for whitespace IIs in section 5.3 [1]
which says:

"The Body element information item MAY have any number of character
information item children whose character code is amongst the whitespace
characters as defined by [XML 1.0]. These are considered significant."

I think this was based on last call comment 208 [2].

>Otherwise good, I think.  Thanks.

Thanks,

Henrik

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part1.xml#soapbody
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x208
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 16:42:41 GMT

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