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

Re: text/xml for SOAP is incorrect

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 15:23:29 -0700
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>, christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010918152324.B16341@mnot.net>

On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 03:09:22PM -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> >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?

It's a mechanism for identifying in the context of XML; i.e., by an
XML processor. Not necessarily by a MIME processor.

> 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.

The problem is that URIs are opaque, and when used as a namespace,
they are typically used for both versioning and identification. Most
uses of content-type do not include versioniong, but are only scoped
as a format identification mechanism.

> 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?

Current practice seems to indicate so. I think most people here will
acknowledge that content-type has limitations, some of them severe.
However, if we step back and limit the discussion to 'what
content-type is typically used for, and therefore what should our
content-type be?', rather than overloading it 'what content-type
should be/could be capable of', I think the answer is fairly simple.


Mark Nottingham
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 18:23:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:15 UTC