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: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:42:07 -0700
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Cc: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010919094202.A1506@mnot.net>

I think that's the intent of the '+xml' - to allow MIME processors
identify it as an XML format.

My concern is not so much dispatch - which is what the request-uri
should be used for, at any rate - but for identifying the messages as
being formatted to the SOAP conventions for those that will casually
handle them, such as intermediaries.

We've decided to run the HTTP binding on port 80, and to use HTTP
status codes to indicate SOAP semantics. SOAPAction is optional. If
SOAP 1.2 messages use application/xml, there is no easy way to
identify a message as SOAP. As a result, parts of the Web
infrastructure may treat SOAP messages as any old XML, performing
transforms, etc. Additionally, firewall vendors won't even have a
stop-gap means of controlling the flow of SOAP messages.

Is our intent to effectively hide the use of SOAP? Doing so seems to
risk both interoperability problems and the appearance that we're
antagonistic to firewalls, etc.




On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 02:55:26PM +0200, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>  Chris,
>  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
> 
>                             Idoox
>                             http://www.idoox.com/
> 
> 
> 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
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
 
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 12:42:15 GMT

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