Phil Adams wrote:

Hi Roland,
For your first question below, I would like to suggest that instead of mentioning anything about specific media types that need to be supported,  we simply defer to the SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 specs.
I think you're referring to the bullet point below about section 2.2.3?  If so, this point was not about media types, but about XML support, I believe.  See the comment from Peter's original markup:

Peter is apparently a sharp reviewer.  As it turns out, according to, conforming XML processors are only required to support UTF-8 & UTF-16, a detail which, if I once knew, I'd since forgotten.

My take - I don't think we have any reason to impose any additional constraints beyond base XML well-formed processing conformance.

  For a particular version of SOAP (1.1 or 1.2), the "SOAPJMS_contentType" property on the JMS message should behave exactly the same as the HTTP counterpart (i.e. the Content-Type HTTP header), IMO.    I would think that most vendor runtimes would use common code that processes the payload of the transport message (HTTP, JMS, etc.) together with the content-type value, without regard for which transport the message arrived on.   And for us to start to specify particular media types, etc. would just open the door for the SOAP/JMS spec to become out of sync with the SOAP/HTTP binding spec.

Phil Adams
WebSphere Development - Web Services
IBM Austin, TX
office: (512) 838-6702  (tie-line 678-6702)
mobile: (512) 750-6599

From: Roland Merrick <>
Date: 06/24/2008 12:27 PM
Subject: [SOAP-JMS] content questions

Greetings, during todays call we failed to get through all the "Content questions" [1] raised by Peter and Eric. The follwing still need some resolution:


Regards, Roland

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU