RE: Closing XML Protocol Last Call issue 395

>"If the communicating parties use the SOAP HTTP binding with 
>the serialization defined by the application/soap+xml" media 
>type AND there is a >> Document Type Declaration (I.e. 
><!DOCTYPE ...> ) present in the XML for the message,  then 
>either one or both of the binding implementation(s) do not 
>follow the rules defined by SOAP's use of that media type and 
>hence break the binding specification."

Yes, that's correct, it should be DTD and not DTD II.

>  Also, I don't THINK the media type rules out  <!DOCTYPE> in 
>all cases. 
>It's restrictions on content are the same as application/xml, 
>I think, right?

The media type is explicitly defined as the serialization of a SOAP
message infoset and not just any old XML. This limitation prohibits a
<!DOCTYPE> for all legal uses of the media type.

>I left out the second sentence because I specifically think it 
>IS ok for other bindings to use the DTD as mechanism on the 
>wire, as long as they later put together an infoset in which 
>it is invisible (which may well be an infoset that is not the 
>one derived directly from the parse of the inbound message, 
>but is a synthetic infoset that takes most of its info from 
>the parsed message, but cleans it up to get rid of any 
>vestiges of the use of DTDs, entities, etc.

Note that the qualification of the 2nd sentence explicitly mentions
bindings *using* the "application/soap+xml" media type. The point is
that a serialization using this media type can not include a DTD
regardless of which binding it is. In short, if bindings (including the
HTTP binding) want to do tricks with DTDs then they can't use the
"application/soap+xml" media type. The purpose of the sentence is to
clarify this separation.

Henrik

Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 11:12:52 UTC