- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 10:09:06 -0500
- To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- CC: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1 I too would prefer if the para in 7.1 said something like: "Implementations of this binding MUST support, at a minimum, the media type "application/soap+xml" according to [12] when transmitting SOAP Requests or Responses. See [12] for parameters defined by this media type and their recommended usage." I could also see adding a provision that REQUIRED the conneg feature be implemented if additional media types are supported. This would allow conformance as well as extensibility. Cheers, Chris Marc Hadley wrote: <snip/> >> > > +1, mandating use of application/soap+xml as the only supported encoding > prevents use of, e.g SOAP+attachements, with this binding. I brought > this up on the latest TBTF call. I would prefer a more flexible approach > where other content types may also be used with the content negotiation > feature being used to reach agreement on a mutually supported encoding. > > > Pretty much every SOAP implementation supports attachments. If we go > with the proposed formulation then an implementation that supports > attachements cannot be said to conform to our binding, only perhaps to > interoperate with it. > > > Regards, > > Marc. > > >
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 10:10:10 UTC