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

Re: text/xml for SOAP is incorrect

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:55:26 +0200 (CEST)
To: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109191450380.30336-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 To explain my position: I am wary of application/soap and
application/soap+xml because it won't usually allow generic
processing as if it were XML. It's true that the usability of
such generic processing is debatable, but I don't immediately see
the advantages of application/soap...  either (when I strike out
what I feel is misuse - that would be the dispatching usecase).

                            Jacek Kopecky


P.S: 21st century started on Sep 11, 2001

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, christopher ferris wrote:

 > Henrik,
 > Certainly you agree that SOAP is it's own thing.
 > It just happens to also be XML. SOAP has its own process
 > model. Why the resistance to a soap-specific
 > media type? Certainly seems mostly harmless to me.
 > Cheers,
 > Chris
 > Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
 > >
 > > >Sure, why not? You can reflect the SOAP version in a MIME
 > > >"version" parameter on the Content-Type header. Dispatchers
 > > >can choose whether to use this (or not) as they see fit. A
 > > >SOAP processor can make the determination as to support of the
 > > >namespace by inspecting the namespace and further dispatching
 > > >as needed (or loading the right modules, schema, whatever).
 > >
 > > How is this different from regular XML processing to the degree that it
 > > requires a special content type?
 > >
 > > Henrik
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 08:55:28 UTC

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