Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP)

 Oh, the sentence "since SOAP message MUST NOT contain DTDs in
the first place then it would be OK for a processor to ignore one
if present" feels a bit weird. 8-) But I think it can be a good
enough explanation for the compromise.
 I think that Marc's text (in his latest message) along with the
explanation below ready for everybody who asks will do.


                            Jacek Kopecky

                            Idoox
                            http://www.idoox.com/



On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Marc Hadley wrote:

 > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
 > >
 > >  I'd just like to restate here that XML requires some DTD
 > > processing to be done even by non-validating parsers, so ignoring
 > > internal DTDs would violate XML processing rules.
 > >
 > I raised this point at the F2F when defending my original proposal[1]
 > that processors MUST generate a fault on receipt of a message containing
 > a DTD or PI. However it was felt that since SOAP message MUST NOT
 > contain DTDs in the first place then it would be OK for a processor to
 > ignore one if present. As stated in a prior message, this was to allow
 > very simple processors (that presumably are without a full parser) to
 > ignore DTDs and PI rather than be forced to include checks for their
 > (erroneous) presence.
 >
 > Regards,
 > Marc.
 >
 > >
 > >
 > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Marc Hadley wrote:
 > >
 > >  > All,
 > >  >
 > >  > As the custodian of issue 4 I'd like to propose the following resolution
 > >  > and rationale.
 > >  >
 > >  > Proposed Resolution:
 > >  >
 > >  > A SOAP message MUST NOT contain a Document Type Declaration or
 > >  > Processing Instructions. On receipt of a SOAP message containing a
 > >  > Document Type Declaration or Processing Instruction a SOAP receiver MUST
 > >  > either ignore it or generate a fault (see 4.4 SOAP Fault) with faultcode
 > >  > of "Client.DTD" or "Client.PI" respectively.
 > >  >
 > >  > Rationale:
 > >  >
 > >  > In discussions [1,2] there is near universal antipathy towards allowing
 > >  > DTDs in SOAP messages. The attitude towards PIs is somewhat less
 > >  > negative, but is still broadly in favour of exclusion. This maintains
 > >  > the current status-quo inherited from SOAP 1.1.
 > >  >
 > >  > Issue 4 relates to the action a SOAP receiver should take on receipt of
 > >  > a message which includes a DTD or PIs. My original suggestion for
 > >  > resolution[1] was to require the SOAP receiver to generate a fault on
 > >  > receipt of such a message but this was felt to impose an unecessary
 > >  > burden on receivers.
 > >  >
 > >  > An alternative resolution[3] suggested relaxation of my original
 > >  > proposal such that receivers SHOULD ignore DTDs and PIs and MAY generate
 > >  > a fault but this formulation leaves open the possibility of having a
 > >  > compliant SOAP processor that doesn't ignore DTDs and PIs and doesn't
 > >  > generate a fault which I don't think is the desired behaviour.
 > >  >
 > >  > In the spirit of a friendly amendment to the preceeding suggestion I
 > >  > propose to give implementations the option of either ignoring DTDs and
 > >  > PIs or generating a fault on their receipt.
 > >  >
 > >  > Comments ?
 > >  >
 > >  > Marc.
 > >  >
 > >  > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001May/0367.html
 > >  > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0159.html
 > >  > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0167.html
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 >
 >
 >
 >

Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 07:32:11 UTC