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

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

From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:37:26 -0800
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010228133218.02415ee8@hplex1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Narahari, Sateesh" <Sateesh_Narahari@jdedwards.com>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I don't agree.

Content-type: text/xml is just a MIME header that routes the
corresponding MIME part to the XML parser within the service.

The XML parser is -- by design ! -- perfectly able to decipher
the contents of the text/xml and take the appropriate action.

If the content isn't one the service understands, labeling it
any way other than text/xml won't change that.

If the content is compressed it must have a corresponding
Content-encoding or it is just garbage.

Content-type has a simple job.  Let's keep it that way.

John.

At 01:40 PM 2/28/2001 -0700, Narahari,  Sateesh wrote:
>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'?
>-----

______________________________________________________
John J. Barton          email:  John_Barton@hpl.hp.com
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/index.htm
MS 1U-17  Hewlett-Packard Labs
1501 Page Mill Road              phone: (650)-236-2888
Palo Alto CA  94304-1126         FAX:   (650)-857-5100
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2001 16:37:30 GMT

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