Re: Message Reference, Message|element encore

> I think that mime type is generally enough when you are dealing with 
> binary mime types such as images, but this is not really the case for 
> textual mime types.
> Taking the xhtml example, you have two DTDs for strict or transitional 
> XHTML. It would be good in that case if the WSDL description could give 
> the mime type plus some more precise data constraints like XML-Schema 
> constraints on simple content, DTDs, regular expressions..., all things 
> that fit well in the WSDL schema section.[snip]

Would it really?  The media type suffices for specifying which
specification should be used to process the content.  So long as the
specification itself is backwards compatible with previous versions of
the spec, does it matter that it's v3 or v4 of the format?  I say it
doesn't.  But if the spec isn't backwards compatible, then you really
need a new media type.  So I think it suffices.

Of course, that said, and despite what RFC 3023 says, application/xml is
often used to suggest namespace dispatch (tying the spec to the content
via the namespace).  So I think it's useful to support both media type
and namespace for that case.  FWIW, this is exactly what I did in RDF
Forms;

  http://www.markbaker.ca/2003/05/RDF-Forms/#containers

> Also to be noted that we can today describe operations using messages 
> consisting in XHTML or SVG documents. Using the HTTP binding, these 
> messages will have the "application/xml" mime type while it would be 
> more appropriate to use more precise mime types ("application/xhtml+xml" 
> or "image/svg+xml" for instance).Therefore, it might be good to be able 
> to set the mime type to use for a given message, at least at the HTTP 
> binding level, is'nt it ?

Yep, definitely.  +1

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

Received on Thursday, 19 February 2004 13:44:29 UTC