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

RE: text/xml for SOAP is incorrect

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:18:38 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D04CA18DD@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@idoox.com>, "christopher ferris" <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I completely agree with Jacek's concerns about the assumptions behind
"+xml".

It was my understanding that last time (Dec 2000) this issue was
discussed at length [1], it was pointed out that the notion of "+xml"
does not match well with SOAP messages which in all interesting
scenarios will be composed by multiple namespaces.

Unless this has been addressed (which I am not aware of) it seems
premature to claim that "application/soap+xml" is a reasonable approach.

Henrik

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0152.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0198.html

>I've skimmed through appendix A of RFC 3023 and I feel like it 
>is based on the assumption that most MIME dispatchers will be 
>upgraded or built to support this +xml thingie. On the other 
>hand the RFC is very opposed to other, more general ways like 
>for example A.5 or A.7 (section of the appendix A), while 
>these approaches would require about the same level of support 
>in MIME dispatchers as the +xml suffix.
>
>I'd be OK either with application/xml for SOAP or with 
>something like A.5(A.7) in a new release of MIME spec RFCs.
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 17:20:10 GMT

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