Re: A WSDL media type and the TAG

XMLP's reasons for defining "application/soap+xml" were, AFAIR:

* SOAP messages typically targetted at applications, not humans 
(hence "application").

* Carried XML content, so should be processeable by any typical 
XML application (hence the "+xml").

* Mostly targetted at SOAP processor (hence "soap").

Don't we have similar reasons for adopting either "text/wsdl+xml" 
or "application/wsdl+xml"?

Jean-Jacques.

Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 18:24, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> 
>>>>"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.
> 
> 
> This is a TAG finding, not a W3C Recommendation. In any case, as Arthur
> and I pointed out, they are reasons to define one.
> 
> Philippe
> 
>