Re: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP?

What I have been proposing is that we provide
for a Fault that MAY be used. We don't need to
say that a message that contains PIs or DTD
MUST be rejected, only that it MAY be.

Cheers,

Chris

"Champion, Mike" wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 11:37 AM
> > To: christopher ferris
> > Cc: jacek@idoox.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP?
> 
> > If people start deploying processors that act on,
> > for example, entities defined in an internal DTD subset carried with the
> > message, my  customers will expect my products to understand those
> > messages.
> 
> That's an awfully good point.  I'm re-considering my position, but I'm stuck
> on the idea that it will also create confusion if a message that is XML
> valid according to the SOAP schema MUST be rejected by a conformant SOAP
> processor because it contains a PI, or an internal DTD subset, or whatever.
> Am I missing something?

Received on Friday, 21 September 2001 12:07:33 UTC