- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:54:06 +0100
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- CC: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
XMLP's reasons for defining "application/soap+xml" were, AFAIR: * SOAP messages typically targetted at applications, not humans (hence "application"). * Carried XML content, so should be processeable by any typical XML application (hence the "+xml"). * Mostly targetted at SOAP processor (hence "soap"). Don't we have similar reasons for adopting either "text/wsdl+xml" or "application/wsdl+xml"? Jean-Jacques. Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 18:24, Jonathan Marsh wrote: > >>>>"W3C Working Groups engaged in defining a language SHOULD arrange >> >>for >> >>>>the registration of an Internet Media Type (defined in RFC 2046 >>>>[RFC2046]) for that language;[...]" >> >>How do you conclude from this that we don't need to define a media type? >>I reached the opposite conclusion. > > > This is a TAG finding, not a W3C Recommendation. In any case, as Arthur > and I pointed out, they are reasons to define one. > > Philippe > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2002 06:54:59 UTC