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.orgReceived 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