RE: XML+RPC vs BCP70 , <?xml?> processing tag abuse?

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> My impression of 3470 was that it recommends enforcing restrictions on
> XML syntax within ietf documents, if the restrictions 
> actually accomplish
> some interoperability task (and a few things in my draft are 
> just contrary
> to XML and multiple RFC3470 recommendations, because they 
> were broken in
> XML-RPC before).

I don't believe that was the intention of the authors (including me) or the
reviewing community at all.  While it's true that the document was
specifically written to address the use of XML in the IETF context, I don't
believe there are any recommendations to restrict XML syntax if the
restriction supports interoperability.  On the contrary, we included
statements like this:

"For this reason, it is recommended that protocol specifications explicitly
require XML well-formedness ("MUST be well-formed")."

and this:

"When specifying the handing of erroneous XML protocol elements, a protocol
design must never recommend attempting to partially interpret
non-well-formed instances of an element which is required to be XML."

and finally this, in Section 4.3, "Syntactic Restrictions"

"In general, such syntactic restrictions should be avoided."

-Scott-
(not speaking for Larry or Marshall, my BCP 70 co-authors)