• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Apologia pro SOAP (was RE: toxins/tocsins )
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 11:25:19 -0400
• In-reply-to: <63BFEJE9N3292ZONXS3YF87ON1V.3d25b62e@MChamp>

7/5/2002 11:07:26 AM, Mike Champion <mc@x...> wrote:

>7/5/2002 7:36:46 AM, Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...> wrote:
>
>Not an XMl 1.0 processor, but you can with a conforming WXS processor ...

Duh, I missed the point completely -- the WXS validator wouldn't
complain about  a DTD/PI/etc. but a conforming SOAP processor would
choke on it.  So one would have to use SAX/DOM/whatever to pre-process
or post-process the validation step with SOAP-aware logic. Sorry.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Apologia pro SOAP (was RE: toxins/tocsins )
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • Apologia pro SOAP (was RE: toxins/tocsins )
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Slightly off, but... was: XUL appears to be dead, is there some other standard that should be looked at
• Next by Date: Is this allowed according to the XML Schema spec ? Tools not agreeing again
• Previous by thread: Apologia pro SOAP (was RE: toxins/tocsins )
• Next by thread: Re: Apologia pro SOAP (was RE: toxins/tocsins )
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread