- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:26:36 -0500
- To: Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, www-ws@w3.org
* Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org> [2002-11-26 12:21+0100] > I wrote: > > > But of course, no PIs in SOAP, and no lower-level mechanism to associate > > stylesheets with documents. So take this as a thought experiment. > > before actually checking the spec. > > "A SOAP message SHOULD NOT contain processing instruction information > items. A SOAP receiver MUST ignore processing instruction information > items in SOAP messages that it receives." > > I guess that we can consider a browser to not be a receiver ("A SOAP > node that accepts a SOAP message"), since it is not a SOAP node, as it > does not "perform processing according to the SOAP processing model". > > Are we safe? I feel uncomfortable with already trying to work around some spec wording for a technology that hasn't made it to Recommendation yet. I don't remember the whole debate about PIs in SOAP, but it seems that there is motivation for using them. Maybe the spec should be changed to: A SOAP message MAY contain processing instruction information items. A SOAP processor MUST ignore processing instruction information items in SOAP messages that it receives. i.e. a PI must not influence the processing of a message, but may be present for some other reason, e.g. for presentation purposes for a browser to use. The last call period for SOAP 1.2 is over, but if a good case is made that there may be interoperability issues due to the interpretation of a part of the spec, it is worth raising the issue IMO. Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Saturday, 30 November 2002 10:47:58 UTC