• To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:40:46 -0800
• In-reply-to: <p04330108b9e5bf67068f@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <p04330108b9e5bf67068f@[192.168.254.4]> <4c.14269086.2af14649@a...> <002601c28028$c029b080$a800a8c0@SeairthA31> <p04330107b9e5afc85b06@[192.168.254.4]> <003301c28030$462bdb20$a800a8c0@SeairthA31>

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>
> You never know at compile time what documents you or may not
> encounter. Just because the spec says a SOAP request can't contain a
> processing instruction or a document type declaration doesn't mean
> one won't.

But if one does, then it's not a legal SOAP request, and
a SOAP processor should feel free to treat it the same as
any other illegal input.  It can bail out as soon as it
sees '<' followed by anything other than a name start character.

Now a conformant XML processor can't do that, of course,
but a SOAP processor doesn't need to include a conformant
XML parser.  A parser for the SOAP subset will do just fine.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Article: "The horror of XML". :)
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...
  • Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
    • From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>
  • Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
    • From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Relative URLs using the file scheme?
• Next by Date: Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
• Previous by thread: Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
• Next by thread: Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread