- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:30:51 +0200
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20050923123051.GH19585@w3.org>
LC323[1] points out that we mention HTTP Accept headers in the HTTP binding, but that we do not say how they come into play. This is particularly interesting as {http output serialization} only allows one value. Yet, expectedMediaType is mentioned. Thinking about this more, I figured out what we had in mind with HTTP Accept headers and mentioning expectedMediaType. If one defines an output message as: <xs:element name="pic"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="desc" type="xs:string"/> <xs:element name="content" type="tns:PictureType" xmime:expectedContentTypes="image/jpeg, image/png"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> And if this output message is serialized as application/xml, then if I do an HTTP request with the following Accept headers "application/xml, image/png", I am likely to be given back: <pic> <desc>Cool pic!</desc> <content xmime:contentType="image/png">…</content> </pic> So, I don't believe that there is a technical issue with the spec. On the other hand, this text is obviously confusing. I have thought of providing a better wording, but in the end, I am wondering if this really belongs to the HTTP Binding, as this is more related to the Assigning Media Types to Binary Data in XML document. I am therefore proposing to move this text to the primer, as follows. In section 4.5 MTOM and Attachments Support, after "Note the use of the xmime:expectedContentType and xmime:contentType … Data in XML]." — though there may actually be a better place for this text —, add: Also note that, when using the WSDL HTTP Binding, an implementation MAY use incoming HTTP Accept headers to choose between alternative media types listed in xmime:expectedContentType. Regards, Hugo 1. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/#LC323 -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Friday, 23 September 2005 12:31:05 UTC