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

Re: text/xml for SOAP is incorrect

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 07:46:12 -0400
Message-ID: <3BA88584.9DE5E86B@east.sun.com>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>, christopher ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> >> 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.
> Right, but then why isn't application/xml sufficient?

That might be adequate, certainly more accurate than
text/xml, but I think that application/soap+xml
would be better. 

> >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.
> I don't actually think this is the issue but whenever somebody wants to
> establish a central registry--especially for things that a *lot* of
> design work has gone into avoiding central registration, like is the
> case for URIs and XML namespaces, I think there should be a really good
> reason for doing so. To be quite frank I don't see that in RFC 3023.
> Henrik
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 07:47:36 UTC

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