[jdev] xml processing question
stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Aug 15 09:41:09 CDT 2006
Not yet. We would change 11.1 in rfc3920bis.
Scott Cotton wrote:
> That's good to hear.
> Is this error consistent with the rfc3920 sec 11.1 requirement that
> an xmpp implementation ignore restricted xml?
> On 8/14/06, * Peter Saint-Andre* <stpeter at jabber.org
> <mailto:stpeter at jabber.org>> wrote:
> Yes, returning that error seems preferable to ignoring the invalid XML.
> Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> > Sorry, I should have looked that up, and included it in my
> response. We
> > have a well-defined error for that:
> > <stream:error>
> > <invalid-xml xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams'/>
> > <text xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams' xml:lang='en-us'>
> > DTDs are not supported on this stream.
> > </text>
> > </stream:error>
> > or some such. See RFC 3920, section 4.7.3.
> > On Aug 13, 2006, at 2:11 PM, Scott Cotton wrote:
> >> On 8/13/06, Joe Hildebrand < hildjj at gmail.com
> <mailto:hildjj at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>> On Aug 11, 2006, at 7:24 PM, Scott Cotton wrote:
> >>> > I'm still unclear on what "treat as if does not exist" means.
> >>> > First and foremost, I don't know whether ignoring is
> >>> > passing through untouched and uninterpreted or
> >>> > removing it.
> >>> Another option, which resolves this ambiguity is to say that the
> >>> receiving entity MUST disconnect from the sending entity, the
> same as
> >>> if non-well-formed XML had been sent.
> >> I like this option, so long as the receiving entity also sends a
> >> descriptive
> >> error
> >> message to the sending entity.
> >> --scott
> >> PS I am developing an xml parser in java which works on byte buffers
> >> instead
> >> of streams, but uses the java 1.6 / java EE javax.xml.stream
> >> interface so that it can more easily interoperate with other xml
> >> This
> >> makes it easier to work with non-blocking io for a server, but also
> >> unfortunately seemed
> >> to require a dedicated xml parser. Minimizing the required work
> for that
> >> parser
> >> is what originally triggered the question, but I'm more concerned
> >> being
> >> very clear with respect to what happens to message content.
> >> --
> >>> Joe Hildebrand
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the JDev