- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:18:38 -0700
- 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 UTC