Keep in mind that SOAP is not XML. It is an XML application. When you define an XML application, it's perfectly legitimate to restrict certain contructs.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis Sosnoski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Why Pull-Parser faster ? > > > Bill de hÓra wrote: > > > Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > > > >> AFAIK XPP has always reported whitespace properly. Glue's Electric > >> XML is the only parser I know of that discards whitespace between > >> elements (though this may have become an option rather than hardwired > >> behavior in recent versions). > > > > > > Fair enough if a feature is provided that allows ignorable ws to be > > just that. But that doesn't answer my question. > > Electric XML did not distinguish between ignorable whitespace (as > defined in the XML specification, which requires validation) and > ordinary whitespace separating elements - it just discarded it all. As I > remember the only whitespace it reported was inside elements with only > character data content. > > >> XPP3 is the current version of the XPP parser. XPP3 implements the > >> XMLPull interface (http://www.xmlpull.org) and is compliant with the > >> XML specification except with respect to DTDs and related issues > >> (general entities, etc.). These generally aren't used for > >> data-oriented XML, and I think they're actually forbidden by SOAP. > > > > > > XPP hs no business calling itself an XML anything if it doesn't square > > with XML 1.0. If it wants to be a SOAP processor, it should be renamed. > > Your argument is perhaps better directed at SOAP itself. Many XML > advocates feel that SOAP is not XML and should stop representing itself > as such. To quote from the 1.1 spec: "A SOAP message MUST NOT contain a > Document Type Declaration. A SOAP message MUST NOT contain Processing > Instructions." This means that SOAP uses a subset of XML, and XML > subsets are not recognized. > > If you want full XML support with an XMLPull parser you've got the > option of using the implementation based on Xerces XNI (which I think > includes full validation support), or could alternatively write a > wrapper for the basic XMLPull interface that handles DTD processing. > I've thought about doing that in the past, but it hasn't been high on my > priority list. > > IMHO one of the mistakes of the SAX interface design was to merge DTD > handling and validation into the parser core. These types of functions > can more cleanly be handled as layers over a core parser API. If this > had been done with SAX we would have the problem of some parsers > supporting validation and other not - the validation would be a SAX > filter that could be used with any parser. > > - Dennis >
