W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2001

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

From: Narahari, Sateesh <Sateesh_Narahari@jdedwards.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:40:40 -0700
Message-ID: <EAB106989D20D311BC520008C75D18B0117CBA76@cormails4.jdedwards.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I think the key point here is Simple "Object Access" Protocol. If we really
are accessing an object, then why are we saying it is text?. 

text/xml is such a generic one, what if its XML-RPC or
"my-own-xml-on-the-wire-in-the-format-we-define-dotcom" ?.

Also is there any guarantee that XML is always going to be "text" on the
wire, what if the payload is compressed?. 

I too consider text/xml to be harmful, in terms of future extensibility and
potentially future protocols that may just be text based and XML.

Sateesh

----------Original Message-----
-----From: Mullins, Chalon [mailto:Chalon.Mullins@schwab.com]
-----Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 10:42 AM
-----To: 'Mike Dierken'; 'xml-dist-app@w3.org'
-----Subject: RE: text/xml for SOAP (and XP) considered harmful
-----
-----
-----For my money -- the key point is that it is text.  The need to find
-----solutions such as attachments for handling binary 
-----indicates this.  So I
-----would stay with 'text/xml'.
-----
----------Original Message-----
-----From: Mike Dierken [mailto:mike@DataChannel.com]
-----Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 2:25 PM
-----To: 'xml-dist-app@w3.org'
-----Subject: RE: text/xml for SOAP (and XP) considered harmful
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----Currently SOAP uses 'text/xml'. Some people say it should be
-----application/xml. Extra info like 'text/soap+xml' has been proposed.
-----
-----What is the final thoughts? 
-----
-----Has anyone thought about using 'message/soap+xml' rather 
-----than 'text' or
-----'application'? 
-----
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2001 15:46:50 GMT

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