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 17:07:04 +0200 (CEST)
To: "Jones, Matthew" <MJones@NetSilicon.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109191700440.30336-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Matthew,
 What would you do with SVG? Is that xml/svg or image/svg?
 It's both so this shows one of the shortcomings of either MIME
or of the idea of XML media.
 MIME content-type as defined now seems to be inappropriate for
saying something is XML or something is a-particular-app-of-XML.
Let's move to the new standards (namespaces) or extend the old
ones (MIME), but let's do it cleanly, not half way, as in RFC
3023.

                            Jacek Kopecky

                            Idoox
                            http://www.idoox.com/



On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Jones, Matthew wrote:

 > I think the problem is that XML is really not a format at all it is a
 > meta format.  Also something like application/xml doesn't fit since xml
 > isn't an application or a file format format for an application that say
 > application/mathematica is.  I think that xml should be its own type and
 > the various instances should be its subtypes.  For example
 >
 > xml/mathml
 > xml/svgml
 > xml/soap
 > xml/wsdl
 > ...
 >
 > If xhtml could become the standard I think
 >
 > xml/xhtml
 >
 > would make more sense than what we have now.  This allows a fall back to
 > xml for processing processors that don't have a renderer for say svgml.
 > I think if you compare with existing content types say image/jpeg you'll
 > see that as a metaphor xml has more in common with image than with jpeg.
 >
 > Matthew Jones
 > mjones@netsilicon.com
 >
 >
 >
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 11:07:06 GMT

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