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

Re: MIME marking for SOAP and XP (was text/xml for SOAP (and XP) con sidered harmful)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:35:53 -0800
To: Mark Baker <mark.baker@canada.sun.com>
Cc: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, mmurata@trl.ibm.co.jp
Message-ID: <20010103183551.B13153@akamai.com>
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 12:05:03PM -0500, Mark Baker wrote:
> > Another reason for introducing specialized media types is proxy
> > servers.  If we have a specialized media type for SOAP/XP, proxy
> > servers can easily take some actions for SOAP messages.  If this is
> > useful, we need a specialied media type for SOAP.
> 
> Right.  I believe that we should try to ensure HTTP-only intermediaries
> can participate in an XP (or SOAP) processor route (or at least not foul
> it up).  Hmm, sounds like a new requirement to me;
> 
> "XP should ensure that using non-XP-aware application level
> intermediaries in a chain of XP processors (e.g. an HTTP-only proxy
> between XP-over-HTTP intermediaries), should not interfere with the
> end-to-end contract of that chain."

R803 implies the ability to interpose a non-processing intermediary
with no ill effect (i.e., the message will be opaque to the
intermediary):

  XML Protocol must not preclude the use of transport bindings that
  define transport intermediary roles such as store-and-forward,
  proxy and gateway.



-- 
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 21:35:57 GMT

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