- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 15:48:09 -0800
- To: <dick@8760.com>, "David E. Cleary" <davec@progress.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> I agree, if XP URI references are constrained to "local only" > then none of > the issues I > raised will exist. Is it the groups consensus to constrain > URI's to local > references only? If not then we will need to deal with the > issues I listed. Could you please define what you mean by 'local reference' - we only use URIs as identifiers and have no requirement to that the recipient does with identifiers (or even knows what 'local' means). I am sorry if I missed your list of issues - I can't find them in this thread? > > XML Schemas does not suffer from this limitation, so encoding an XML > > document for use within an XP PDU is not required. > > I agree, however SOAP has restrictions against certain "legal" XML > content from appearing in a SOAP message, ref: section 3 of SOAP > spec states: > > "A SOAP message MUST NOT contain a Document Type Declaration. > A SOAP message MUST NOT contain Processing Instructions. [7]" > > This means any XML document containing PI's or DOCTYPE's must be > "scrubbed" (or base64 encoded) before being placed in a > SOAP:Body. Scrubbing > could > cause a problem for "signed data". Yes, this is in fact an issue which is listed on the SOAP issues list: http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/general/soapspec_issues.asp listed from http://msdn.microsoft.com/soap/ Thanks, Henrik
Received on Friday, 8 December 2000 18:48:47 UTC