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>
 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

                            Jacek Kopecky


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 UTC

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