- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:26:04 -0800
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>My question is, does it provide a unique encoding (modulo, >say, insignificant whitespace) or does it allow wiggle room >for you to introduce a <!DOCTYPE > while serializing. Unless I am missing something, I don't think there is any wiggle room because we state that the serialization is an XML/1.0 representation of the SOAP message infoset, no more, no less. IMO, this means that there is no mechanism for adding things *not* in the SOAP message infoset including internal subsets because they would require a document type declaration information item even if parts thereof don't show up in the infoset. > As >mentioned in my note to Gudge a minute ago, I think there are >some DTD constructions that are not visible in the infoset >(parsed entity declarations, attribute declarations w/ >defaults). I don't see 3203 as prohibiting their introduction >into the serialization, and that's my problem. If my concern >is justified, I think we close the hole by saying: "Use the >application/soap+xml media type, being sure not to include a ><!DOCTYPE>." Or, if we want to disallow it in the media type >(which would take application/soap+xml further from >application/xml, but would otherwise be OK with me), that >would be OK too. I am still not convinced that it is the Right Thing because the obvious question would be: 'well, where would "<!DOCTYPE>" come from when serializing a SOAP message using the mechanism described by the "application/soap+xml" media type?' Henrik
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 19:26:32 UTC