- From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:51:21 -0700
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I'm not sure that there would be much complexity added by allowing processing instructions. Parsing-wise, they are on the same level of ease as comments, which SOAP allows.[1] Semantically, my understanding is that processing instructions in XML generally are always safe to ignore except by applications that are coded specifically to recognize specific processing instructions. So, in general, any application that is not coded to process a specific PI may ignore it. Unless my understanding of PIs is mistaken, that should make for a fairly short discussion, much as Henrik proposed. PIs have some utility. For example, one might put a stylesheet PI into a SOAP message so that it would look nicely rendered in a browser or email, and not just look like raw XML. This could be helpful in getting more SOAP/XMLP adoption and also helpful in getting email messages to be transmitted as SOAP/XMLP messages. Just an idea. [1] Processing Instructions, XML 1.0 spec, http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210#dt-pi -----Original Message----- From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 2:35 PM To: Rich Salz Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; xml-dist-app@w3.org Subject: Re: Proposed Clarification for Issues 4 and 23 Are we sure we want to get into PI's? One of the nice things about writing an efficient SOAP processor is you don't need to deal with quite all the minutia of general XML. As this discussion illustrates, even small features like PI cause complexity: must you fault? can you fault? what does it mean to understand a PI? If SOAP doesn't allow PI, do we really have sufficiently compelling reasons to reintroduce them? Also, it feels to me like there might be some question as to which PI's are to be interpreted generically to the envelope, and which would have to be understood by the code processing, for example, a header. Are we sure the value outweighs the added details to be gotten right (in both spec and code?) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 20:52:13 UTC