Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) from Paul Denning on 2001-09-30 (xml-dist-app@w3.org from September 2001)

From: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 07:22:33 -0400
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010930070142.01ab4ff8@mailsrv1.mitre.org>

At 11:35 AM 2001-09-28, Marc Hadley wrote:
>All,
>
>As the custodian of issue 4 I'd like to propose the following resolution 
>and rationale.
>
>Proposed Resolution:
>
>A SOAP message MUST NOT contain a Document Type Declaration or Processing 
>Instructions. On receipt of a SOAP message containing a Document Type 
>Declaration or Processing Instruction a SOAP receiver MUST either ignore 
>it or generate a fault (see 4.4 SOAP Fault) with faultcode of "Client.DTD" 
>or "Client.PI" respectively.

Please clarify what you mean by "ignore it".
I assume stop processing the entire message because, as Bob Hutchison 
points out, it does not seem correct to process something that violates a 
MUST NOT contain.  I agree with MUST NOT rather than SHOULD NOT.

Note that the wording used in section 2.4 for mustUnderstand is "... or not 
process the SOAP message at all, and fail (see 4.4 SOAP Fault)."

Recommend:
A SOAP message MUST NOT contain a Document Type Declaration or Processing 
Instructions. On receipt of a SOAP message containing a Document Type 
Declaration or Processing Instruction a SOAP receiver MUST NOT process the 
SOAP message at all, and MAY generate a fault (see 4.4 SOAP Fault) with 
faultcode of "Client.DTD" or "Client.PI" respectively.

Paul

Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 07:23:55 UTC