RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body

>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 
>"The Body EII can contain any II that is not explicitly 
>prohibited by this 
>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

>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.




Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 16:42:41 UTC