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

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

From: <mmurata@trl.ibm.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:58:47 +0900 (LMT)
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Cc: mmurata@trl.ibm.co.jp
Message-Id: <20001214095847D.mmurata@trl.ibm.com>
> I am sorry that I haven't seen this discussion but I am afraid I don't
> understand the reasons you put forward. You previous spec (RFC 2376) as
> well as this ID already says that using the charset parameter is
> "STRONGLY RECOMMENDED" and it goes to great length to promote using this
> parameter. Why would a "ns" parameter as I suggested be different (which
> is not defined as part of MIME per se but as a parameter on any given
> media type)?

The charset parameter is recommended by RFC 2130 and MIME RFCs
already.  On the other hand, people have understand that adoption of
new parameters is not easy, especially for dispatching.  

You might disagree, but this is a done deal.  It has been thoroughly
discussed by MIME people and has been endorsed as a Proposed Standard
by the IESG.

> Yes, of course an XML document may contain more than one XML NS but
> could you tell me how this is captured by, for example "text/rdf+xml"?

The convention works only for single-namespace XML documents.
Handling of multi-namespace XML documents is still an open issue.
Nobody has shown any proposals.  People understand the limitaion of
the naming convention, but still agree that it has advantages.

> PS: The draft fails to indicate the appropriate forum for discussion of these
> issues but please feel free to forward this mail as appropriate.

By mistake, the latest I-D mentions "xml-mime-types@imc.org".  
But the mailing list is "ietf-xml-mime@imc.org".


IBM Tokyo Research Lab / International University of Japan, Research Institute
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2000 20:05:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:11 UTC