W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2002

RE: A WSDL media type and the TAG

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:24:40 -0800
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C0836D45E@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

> > "W3C Working Groups engaged in defining a language SHOULD arrange
for
> > the registration of an Internet Media Type (defined in RFC 2046
> > [RFC2046]) for that language;[...]"

How do you conclude from this that we don't need to define a media type?
I reached the opposite conclusion.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:17 AM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: Jonathan Marsh; David Orchard; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: A WSDL media type and the TAG
> 
> On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 15:37, Mark Baker wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:47:02AM -0800, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure what you mean by the WSD WG is checking with the
TAG.
> > >
> > > We plan to look at TAG findings relating to this issue, is all.
> >
> > Okey doke, then allow me to point you in the right direction;
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime
> >
> > Quoting the important bit;
> >
> > "W3C Working Groups engaged in defining a language SHOULD arrange
for
> > the registration of an Internet Media Type (defined in RFC 2046
> > [RFC2046]) for that language;[...]"
> >
> > This finding defines a new process that working groups should follow
> > too, that is *substantially* different than in the past.  The XMLP
WG
> > will be the guinea pigs for this new approach, I believe ... unless
> > they delay much longer 8-/.
> 
> I had the action item to look into the TAG findings and other
documents
> and find out if the WG was required to create a new mime type for WSDL
> or not. As Mark found out, there is no such requirement on a WG. So I
> believe the real issue here would be: Why do we need to have a new
mime
> type for WSDL?
> I didn't come up yet with a valid use case to extend the current
> application/xml definition. I believe it does what we need. Of course,
> it does not resolve the multiple namespace document question but
neither
> do the */*+xml.
> Looking at the HTTP protocol, you would need a different mime type in
> one case: content type negociation. If the same URI can return a WSDL
> and a DAML+S document, both are application/xml. You would need mime
> types to differentiate them. Using the namespace name of the root
> element will not help you asking the right version to the server or
the
> the cache.
> 
> Philippe
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 18:25:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:22 GMT