- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 15:09:22 -0700
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@idoox.com>, "christopher ferris" <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>This presupposes the necessity of reflecting the message's >namespaces in the content-type; why is this necessary? Well, isn't this how we have defined a mechanism for identifying SOAP -- by the use of a specific XML Namespace identifier? If the content type is related to SOAP in any way then I think there is an inherent link between whatever the content type is and the URI that we pick for indicating that this is SOAP. In this context, what does a shortname even mean? Do we expect "application/soap+xml" to point to any SOAP including SOAP 1.1, SOAP 1.2, and beyond? >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). That maybe have been addressed in the long thread as well but at least some parts talk about the use of "application/soap+xml" as a potential content-type for SOAP. Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 18:10:19 UTC