W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2000

Re: text/xml for SOAP (and XP) considered harmful

From: Larry Cable <larry.cable@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 10:34:48 -0800
Message-ID: <3A366FC8.E396999A@sun.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
CC: mmurata@trl.ibm.co.jp, xml-dist-app@w3.org


Larry Masinter wrote:

> > Larry Masinter wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, SOAP should use
> > >    application/soap+xml
> >
> > why not just application/soap or application/xp ???
> >
> > what's in a name?
>
> Well, MIME media types are not just 'names', they're specifically
> used to invoke different kinds of processing
>
> From
>
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murata-xml-09.txt
>
> section 7:
>
>    XML generic processing is not always appropriate for XML-based media
>    types. For example, authors of some such media types may wish that
>    the types remain entirely opaque except to applications that are
>    specifically designed to deal with that media type. By NOT following
>    the naming convention '+xml', such media types can avoid XML-generic
>    processing. Since generic processing will be useful in many cases,
>    however -- including in some situations that are difficult to
>    predict ahead of time -- those registering media types SHOULD use
>    the '+xml' convention unless they have a particularly compelling
>    reason not to.

aha! ... thanks for the clarification!

>
>
> So the question is whether it is desirable that intermediaries
> might intercept and process SOAP messages using XML-generic
> processing. If it is, then application/xp+xml or application/soap+xml
> is appropriate. If not, then application/xp is appropriate. In neither
> case is application/xml or text/xml appropriate.

agreed!

>
>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2000 13:33:43 GMT

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