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

RE: [i95, i22] - Proposal for clarifying use of SOAPAction

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 08:19:10 -0700
To: "'Hugo Haas'" <hugo@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D03441709@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

>* Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com> [2001-04-27
>> We could have used the media type but that makes it impossible to 
>> distinguish posting a SOAP message as just data vs. as a SOAP HTTP 
>> request. Also, it is much harder to define nested bindings like MIME 
>> multipart/related [2] as they already have defined media types and we

>> would then have to special case this or have the server look through 
>> the message to see whether there is a SOAP message hidden in there 
>> somewhere.
>Could you please elaborate on that?

It is not just "plain xml" but in fact a SOAP message that one might not
want to have treated as a SOAP message. Regarding the latter, the media
type for SOAP MIME multipart is "Multipart/Related", not text/xml, see

>For example, using text/xml for plain XML and 
>application/soap+xml (or something else) for a processable 
>SOAP message would do the job.

[2] http://www.w3.org/tr/soap-attachments
[3] http://www.w3.org/tr/soap-attachments

Received on Thursday, 3 May 2001 11:20:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:13 UTC