- From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:37:26 -0800
- To: "Narahari, Sateesh" <Sateesh_Narahari@jdedwards.com>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I don't agree. Content-type: text/xml is just a MIME header that routes the corresponding MIME part to the XML parser within the service. The XML parser is -- by design ! -- perfectly able to decipher the contents of the text/xml and take the appropriate action. If the content isn't one the service understands, labeling it any way other than text/xml won't change that. If the content is compressed it must have a corresponding Content-encoding or it is just garbage. Content-type has a simple job. Let's keep it that way. John. At 01:40 PM 2/28/2001 -0700, Narahari, Sateesh wrote: >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'? >----- ______________________________________________________ John J. Barton email: John_Barton@hpl.hp.com http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/index.htm MS 1U-17 Hewlett-Packard Labs 1501 Page Mill Road phone: (650)-236-2888 Palo Alto CA 94304-1126 FAX: (650)-857-5100
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2001 16:37:30 UTC