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:
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.
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.
WebSphere Development - Web Services
IBM Austin, TX
office: (512) 838-6702 (tie-line 678-6702)
mobile: (512) 750-6599
From: Roland Merrick <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org 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"  raised by Peter and Eric. The follwing still need some resolution:
- Section 2.2.3: contentType - Do we need to add statements requiring minimal support for various flavors of XML, or require that vendors support specific encodings?
- Section 2.2.3: We define a "requestIRI" property. Do we want to change this to a requestURI property, but allow users to put an IRI in the contents? This will have a cascade effect in other places....
Interesting question, where do we actually allow IRIs and when are they converted to URIs.
- Section 2.2.4: Definition of fault codes with "IRI" in the name - do we want to change them to use URI?
I would certainly say YES, change to URI. I certainly hope this is the case as Bhakti already changed to URI as part of the "universal" switchover.
- Section 2.7.2: If this is untestable, should we be specifying it?
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