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

Okay, I understand your point that the 'MIME type qualifier' is not the same
as an XML-Namespace. But many people that use this MIME type qualifier will
take the simple path of using the same URI as some XML-Namespace from the
XML content.

So, I supposed the questions I have assume that a URI will be used (I
definitely like the delegated/distributed naming authority aspects of URIs).
Given this assumption, what are the 'recommended practices' for this URI?
Should it always be an XML-Namespace from the XML content? Should it always
be something else?


Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Layman [mailto:andrewl@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 11:30 AM
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: text/xml for SOAP (and XP) considered harmful
> 
> 
> Mike Dierken asked a number of questions about use of a "namespace
> identifier" to qualify the MIME type of a SOAP message.  
> (Henrik proposes
> something like this in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0159.html )
> 
> Discussing this as a namespace identifier misses the main point.  The
> essential issues are 
> 
> a.    Is the MIME type qualified by a name from a centralized 
> registry of
> permitted names (e.g. soap) or by a URI (e.g.
> http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap). 
> 
> b.    Does the qualification appear as part of the MIME type (e.g.
> text/soap+xml) or as a distinct parameter (e.g. text/xml;
> use="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap")?
>