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 <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 15:33:27 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0297CBEB@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jeffrey Kay" <jkay@ENGENIA.COM>, <dick@8760.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

>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

Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 19:18:59 UTC

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