- From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 09:45:54 -0400
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
- CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jacek, I respectfully disagree, we should keep it at MUST NOT include DTD or PIs. The issue is what a SOAP Receiver needs to do to handle the exceptional case when a non-compliant SOAP client sends a message that includes either or both. Cheers, Chris Jacek Kopecky wrote: > > Chris, > if we say that "receivers SHOULD ignore and MAY generate a > fault", IMHO we should also say that "a SOAP message SHOULD NOT > have a DTD or PIs". This would put the same strength of > expressions on both sides of the story. > I'd +1 this. 8-) > > Jacek Kopecky > > Idoox > http://www.idoox.com/ > > On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, christopher ferris wrote: > > > I think that the status quo (a SOAP message MUST NOT have a DTD > > or PIs) should be preserved. The issue is what to do about > > them if a (non-compliant) SOAP client sends a message that > > includes either. > > > > As I stated at the f2f, I think that they should be ignored. > > We shouldn't be imposing that a SOAP server MUST check for > > these and return a Fault as this adds unnecessary complexity, > > especially for PIs. > > > > What we could say is that a SOAP Receiver SHOULD ignore a DTD > > or PI in a SOAP message and that they MAY send a Fault (which should > > be defined should we go down this path). > > > > A SOAP implementation that can not handle DTDs can exclude > > them relatively easily. Whether it chooses to send a fault would > > be implementation dependent. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > > > Marc Hadley wrote: > > > > > > Jacek Kopecky wrote: > > > > > > > > I couldn't find it in archives (because the search engine > > > > returned nothing at all), so I'll ask: > > > > What are the reasons for disallowing document type declaration > > > > and processing instructions in SOAP? Will we keep the > > > > restrictions in SOAP version 1.2? As it is now, SOAP grammar is a > > > > subset of XML. > > > > > > > We discussed this at the recent F2F in relation to issue 4 which raises > > > the question of what a receiver should do on receipt of a message > > > containing a PI or DTD. I have an pending action to re-raise this issue > > > - consider it raised ! > > > > > > There seems to be two opinions on the subject of DTDs and PIs: > > > > > > (i) Allowing them increases complexity and doesn't bring any particular > > > benefit, the only compelling argument for allowing PIs was so that a > > > stylesheet could be associated with a message for human viewing. > > > > > > (ii) Adding them doesn't add much to the complexity, they are part of > > > XML so we should allow them. > > > > > > My original suggestion for resolution of issue 4 was to retain their > > > current status (i.e. not allowed) and add text requiring a SOAP > > > processor to generate a fault when a message containing one was received. > > > > > > Others felt that if present they should be ignored but this might prove > > > difficult in the case of DTDs with current parsers. > > > > > > Discussion ? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Marc. > > > > > > -- > > > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> > > > XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems. > >
Received on Friday, 21 September 2001 09:45:56 UTC