Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIsin SOAP)

Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:
> 
> 
> Isn't that exactly the need that's met by the use of XML Infoset to model
> messages at a local node in the latest specification?  See [1].  I think
> it's fair to say that W3C is moving toward infoset as opposed to the XPath
> data model as the generic abstract model for XML...or more to the point,
> they will come together as necessary.  So, I think we've done what you're
> suggesting.  The Infoset does not currently provide a model for DTDs (or
> schemas);   though there is such an abstraction for schemas in the schemas
> spec, SOAP does not use it.

Yes, it's there in yesterday's spec. And infoset has to be the correct
way of modelling it - the comparison to XPath is perhaps a marketing or
persuasion point. 
> 
> Still, as has been pointed out, a given transport binding either will or
> won't allow DTDs in the XML serialization on the wire.  I can assure you,
> having built implementations both ways, that requiring the receiver to
> parse and apply entity definitions from a DTD will cost you something in a
> high performance implementation.  So, as I've said to often now, I think
> we should not in general allow DTD's in abstract SOAP messages, and should
> not use them in the wire formats for any transport bindings offered by the
> protocol workgroup itself.
> 
> This is an important topic, but I'm beginning to feel that we've gotten
> the essential points on the table for the workgroup to consider.  Should
> we wind down the email thread for now?
> 
Fine - I feel I've made my basic request (not to rule out SOAP
implementations that cannot detect offending DTDs because the parser has
already normalised the message) and that it has had a pretty good airing
- thanks!

Francis.

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 05:47:30 UTC