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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 XMLEvent
>> interface so that it can more easily interoperate with other xml tools.
>> 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 about
>> being
>> very clear with respect to what happens to message content.
>>
>> --
>>> Joe Hildebrand
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
--
scott
