- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:43:59 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Cc: "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham writes: > > * In-XML > > Need for processing will be flagged by an artifact in the XML payload; > > e.g., a SOAP header block such as "<xbinc:DoIncludes/>". > > Advantages: > - Part of the message, therefore easy to persist > Disadvantages: > - Detecting MTOM messages for dispatch expensive > - Binding features should be surfaced in the binding Mark: thanks for pulling all of these together. I am largely in agreement with your analysis. I think there is one more disadvantage for the case above: - presuming the envelope part itself is marked application/soap+xml, we are in my opinion somewhat misusing that media type. While it's true that the contents syntactically resemble a SOAP envelope, they are not in fact a SOAP envelope subject to SOAP processing until the include processing is performed. While I can understand either point of view, I would prefer to encourage use of the application/soap+xml type specifically for the case where what you have is an envelope ready for soap processing. > An alternate media type might be "application/mtom+xml; > content="application/soap+xml" You are more expert in these things than I, but I think we should at least consider application/soap+mtom+xml or application/soapmtom+xml. I'd like to better understand the tradeoffs relative to using content= as you suggest above. Thanks! ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2003 10:49:47 UTC