W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. ac tion parameter

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:53:41 -0400
Message-ID: <3CBEEC05.9090502@sun.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
no, i'm not saying that at all. but are we really
concerned with finding a generic solution for all possible
media types? I would think not.

Cheers,

Chris

Mark Baker wrote:

> Chris,
> 
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 08:23:13AM -0400, Christopher Ferris wrote:
> 
>>-1
>>
>>If you want to identify the "tarball" as a SOAP message
>>then this can be achieved using 2a at least for multipart/*
>>you would have the 'type' parameter which would have
>>'application/soap+xml' as its value and that would identify
>>the message as a SOAP message.
>>
> 
> AFAIK, the "type" parameter is only for multipart/related per RFC 2387,
> not for other multipart/* types.
> 
> But even it was on all multipart/* types, are we saying that we can't
> use other media types unless they have a means for identifying an
> encapsulated type?
> 
> MB
> 
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 11:55:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT