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

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

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:27:16 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010301145732.00aa9a70@joy.songbird.com>
To: Mike Dierken <mike@DataChannel.com>
Cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Ned Freed, main author of the MIME spec, has often commented that the 
_intent_ of the "text" MIME type was for information that could reasonable 
be displayed to a user as raw text.  He also comments that using 
"text/html" was probably a mistake, since displaying HTML as raw text is 
fairly unpopular with most users.

Therefore, it should probably _NOT_ be text/xml.  application/xml or 
application/soap+xml would be better.

The possibility of using message/soap+xml is an interesting option.  The 
difference between application/... and message/... is not always clear:  in 
terms of syntax, there is no real difference.  From past discussions with 
Ned, I understand that the intent of message/... types is to represent MIME 
objects whose content may be interpreted by a message handling element 
rather than handed off to an application.  It not always clear exactly what 
is the distinction.  I think the safe choice would be to use 
"application/soap+xml".

#g
--

At 02:25 PM 2/26/01 -0800, Mike Dierken wrote:

>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'?

------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2001 10:49:31 GMT

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