Re: [Simple] Strength of XML validity requirements in SIMPLE documents

[Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen at dynamicsoft.com>]

inline.

Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> hisham.khartabil at nokia.com wrote:
>
> > I see Jonathan's point here.
> > I think what we need is 2 normative sentences here:
>
>  > The XML document MUST be valid for the creator
>
> I think the above can cause problems, depending on how you define 
> "creator".
>
> Consider a presence document that is created by a UA and published to a 
> PS. The PS then aggregates the contents of this published document, 
> filters that, and thus creates another presence document that is send 
> out in a NOTIFY.
>
> The UA could have used an extension that is unknown to the PS. But IMO 
> the PS should still have the option of including that unknown portion 
> into the document it sends out in the NOTIFY. But then it would be 
> violating this new proposed rule.

Right. It can be easier to define these validity rules in the context of 
a specific protocol usage, and in the above case we could except a 
presence server from needing to generate valid documents. Those kinds of 
rules belong in protocol documents, not in the specifications of the 
document formats themselves.

-Jonathan R.
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
jdrosen at dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple