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 17:58:53 -0400
Message-ID: <3BA7C39D.1DDECDF0@Sun.COM>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1 

well stated.

Chris

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> This presupposes the necessity of reflecting the message's namespaces
> in the content-type; why is this necessary? Defining a content-type
> always involves a tradeoff in the granularity of information
> available. IIRC, the discussion you reference was in the context of
> replacing SOAPAction with something in the content-type, which is not
> the intent here (based upon our resolution of issue 95).
> 
> application/soap+xml says, roughly;
> 
>   This is a format that isn't really interesting for humans to read,
>   as it's intended for machines.  It follows the 'SOAP' format, which
>   happens to be based upon xml.
> 
> IMHO this is about the amount of information that's appropriate. I'd
> also be happy with application/soap.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:18:38PM -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham
> http://www.mnot.net/
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 17:58:55 GMT

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