Re: text/xml for SOAP (and XP) considered harmful

Larry

since the XP protocol group is defining XP I would argue that it should be 

application/xp

a seperate MIME type could (should?) be registered for SOAP

Mark Needleman 
Data Rresearch Associates, Inc


On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Larry Cable wrote:

> 
> 
> 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 14:00:27 UTC