Re: text/xml vs. application/soap

On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 10:26:20AM -0400, Laird Popkin wrote:
> What do people here think about the idea of extending this MIME type when
> applications are layered over SOAP, the same way that SOAP is layered over
> XML? For example, "application/ice+soap+xml" rather than
> "application/soap+xml". It'd have some advantages (i.e. you could manage
> messages by application without having to parse the SOAP message, etc., ...

I don't understand.  A key value of SOAP is the processing model.
Are you suggesting that application/foo+soap+xml types would not
follow it?

> the same reasons that SOAP doesn't simply use "application/xml"), though the

I think the reasons are very different.  "application/xml" doesn't mean
anything.  It's like sending HTML as text/plain.

> implication is that SOAP processors would have to accept
> "application/*soap_xml"...

Initial reaction; ick. 8-)

Is there something special about ICE that suggested this would be useful
thing to do?

FWIW, application/soap+xml is just used by the default binding.  Other
HTTP bindings could be defined that didn't use it.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com