- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:42:07 -0700
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>The exception is: I don't think this is the right issue under >which to >back into allowing PIs in the body. Thus, I would want to be careful >with: > >"The Body EII can contain any II that is not explicitly >prohibited by this >specification." > >To make sure we've really ruled everything that we intend to. I agree, which is why I was being careful formulating the proposal :) Thank you for the clarification, though. I take it that your intent is to call out the separation of concerns, not to propose a change to the sentence? >Also, I'm >not sure what the normative significance of: > >"All such IIs and their values are considered significant." > >is. Leave that sentence out? The intent is to indicate that a SOAP node must assume that the II children of the Body are semantically significant in order to properly understand the contents of the Body EII. FWIW, we have a similar statement for whitespace IIs in section 5.3 [1] which says: "The Body element information item MAY have any number of character information item children whose character code is amongst the whitespace characters as defined by [XML 1.0]. These are considered significant." I think this was based on last call comment 208 [2]. >Otherwise good, I think. Thanks. Thanks, Henrik [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part1.xml#soapbody [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x208
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 16:42:41 UTC