Preparing for application/xml

Hey Henrik,

> >There's other issues that we'd have to resolve before removing 
> >SOAPAction.  For example, do we want to also allow 
> >application/xml (as defined in RFC 3023) to be used?  I think 
> >we do, so some thought has to go into that.
> 
> Good question - attributes can or course not be carried over. Hmm, do we
> want to go there? 

Right, I don't think we want to update RFC 3023 yet, so we'd need
another means of communicating this information; maybe SOAPAction. 8-)
But that's still not the end of it, since we have to specify how
messages described with the permutations of [unadorned media type,
adorned media type, SOAPAction] should behave.

However, I don't see any problem with deferring that work until later,
since I'm sure application/soap+xml will suffice for most people.
What I'm still thinking about, is what we might need to say now to
permit application/xml later.  I'd be interested in hearing your
(or anybody else's thoughts on this).

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com