W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2003

Re: Options for flagging MTOM processing (pros and cons)

From: Fabian L <fabianl2329@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20030827170147.7924.qmail@web20706.mail.yahoo.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: 

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 "".
> 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 

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


Fabian L

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2003 13:01:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:24 UTC