- From: Larry Cable <larry.cable@sun.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 10:34:48 -0800
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- CC: mmurata@trl.ibm.co.jp, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Larry Masinter wrote: > > Larry Masinter wrote: > > > > > Actually, SOAP should use > > > application/soap+xml > > > > why not just application/soap or application/xp ??? > > > > what's in a name? > > Well, MIME media types are not just 'names', they're specifically > used to invoke different kinds of processing > > From > > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murata-xml-09.txt > > section 7: > > XML generic processing is not always appropriate for XML-based media > types. For example, authors of some such media types may wish that > the types remain entirely opaque except to applications that are > specifically designed to deal with that media type. By NOT following > the naming convention '+xml', such media types can avoid XML-generic > processing. Since generic processing will be useful in many cases, > however -- including in some situations that are difficult to > predict ahead of time -- those registering media types SHOULD use > the '+xml' convention unless they have a particularly compelling > reason not to. aha! ... thanks for the clarification! > > > So the question is whether it is desirable that intermediaries > might intercept and process SOAP messages using XML-generic > processing. If it is, then application/xp+xml or application/soap+xml > is appropriate. If not, then application/xp is appropriate. In neither > case is application/xml or text/xml appropriate. agreed! > > > Larry > -- > http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2000 13:33:43 UTC