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

>I'd agree that text/xml would be really hard to distinguish 
>SOAP messages from others without processing the XML directly. 
> I'd be more in favor of a text/xml-soap or 
>application/xml-protocol or something like that to clearly 
>identify the kind of XML involved.  It's not a perfect 
>solution, but it solves the "signal" problem without having to 
>resort to another header. Another thought might be to use 
>something like:
>
>	Content-Type: text/xml; format=xml-protocol
>
>This would have the same signal effect as SOAPAction, but 
>without the extra header value.  

But it doesn't really - there are two parts to the SOAPAction fields -
the fact that it is a SOAP message (which at the end of the day doesn't
say much of anything) and then there is the hint which is administrated
in a decentralized manner. 

Btw, there is an RFC on XML and media types - it's RFC 3023

Henrik