- From: Narahari, Sateesh <Sateesh_Narahari@jdedwards.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:40:40 -0700
- To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I think the key point here is Simple "Object Access" Protocol. If we really are accessing an object, then why are we saying it is text?. text/xml is such a generic one, what if its XML-RPC or "my-own-xml-on-the-wire-in-the-format-we-define-dotcom" ?. Also is there any guarantee that XML is always going to be "text" on the wire, what if the payload is compressed?. I too consider text/xml to be harmful, in terms of future extensibility and potentially future protocols that may just be text based and XML. Sateesh ----------Original Message----- -----From: Mullins, Chalon [mailto:Chalon.Mullins@schwab.com] -----Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 10:42 AM -----To: 'Mike Dierken'; 'xml-dist-app@w3.org' -----Subject: RE: text/xml for SOAP (and XP) considered harmful ----- ----- -----For my money -- the key point is that it is text. The need to find -----solutions such as attachments for handling binary -----indicates this. So I -----would stay with 'text/xml'. ----- ----------Original Message----- -----From: Mike Dierken [mailto:mike@DataChannel.com] -----Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 2:25 PM -----To: 'xml-dist-app@w3.org' -----Subject: RE: text/xml for SOAP (and XP) considered harmful ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Currently SOAP uses 'text/xml'. Some people say it should be -----application/xml. Extra info like 'text/soap+xml' has been proposed. ----- -----What is the final thoughts? ----- -----Has anyone thought about using 'message/soap+xml' rather -----than 'text' or -----'application'? -----
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2001 15:46:50 UTC