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

Re: text/xml for SOAP is incorrect

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:47:03 -0400
Message-ID: <3BA76C77.20C98779@Sun.COM>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jacek,

application/soap+xml is XML from the viewpoint
of MIME content types as per 3023. Of course, there may
be a catch-up period before all MIME parsers
recognize this. That shouldn't stop this
from moving forward as 3023 *is* a standards track RFC.

I do think though that the primary issue isn't so much
the media subtype, but the primary media type. I firmly
support application/* and oppose use of text/xml. If
it is determined that we won't go down the soap+xml
subtype, then it should be application/xml not text/xml.

Cheers,

Chris

Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> 
> Hello all. 8-)
> 
> I'd like to voice my +1 on application/xml and on warning against
> the path of application/soap_for_book_buying_and_video_buying+xml.
> 
> More specific identification of type than application/xml is done
> by the XML document's namespace.
> 
> If an application needs to dispatch before parsing the document,
> that's what different endpoint URIs are for.
> 
> If the application is given a URL, for example
> "http://foo.com/application", it should be allowed to get all
> messages for "http://foo.com/application/**" as well and then it
> can dispatch by this URL.
> 
> What I don't like about application/soap+xml is that (AFAIK)
> soap+xml is not xml (from the viewpoint of MIME content types) so
> in case this subtype is not known the data won't even be treated
> as XML.
> 
>                             Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                             Idoox
>                             http://www.idoox.com/
> 
> P.S: 21st century started on Sep 11, 2001
> 
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, John J. Barton wrote:
> 
>  > With all respect to the authors of RFC 3023 (XML Media Types),
>  > binding behavior to representations of Web resources is not
>  > at good engineering direction for Web technologies[1]
>  > A SOAP message is text: it can be read with text tools and
>  > it is encoded as XML so XML parsers can study it and parse
>  > further information without hints.  There should not be a
>  > different media type for XML sent to an "application"
>  > verses one sent to a "browser" (which is just another
>  > application).  The server should not assume the use of
>  > the media representation.
>  >
>  > Therefore application/xml is not necessary.  I suppose it
>  > may be to late to turn back from that.  But let us not go
>  > further down the path to application/soap+xml,
>  > application/soap_for_ecommerce+xml,
>  > application/soap_for_book_buying+xml
>  > application/soap_for_book_buying_and video_buying+xml, etc.
>  > Content-type should describe the media type, not its use,
>  > or provide other information that is elsewhere.
>  >
>  > [1] Roy Fielding, "Architectural Styles and the Design of
>  > Network-based Software Architectures",
>  > http://www.ebuilt.com/fielding/pubs/fielding_dissertation_2up.pdf
>  >
>  > John.
>  >
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 11:47:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT