- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:47:21 -0800
- To: "Narahari, Sateesh" <Sateesh_Narahari@jdedwards.com>, <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?. I wouldn't get too hung up upon the spelling of the SOAP acronym - if you read the spec there are many possible uses of SOAP. >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?. That is a different question entirely. In HTTP one could use the Content-Encoding or the Transfer-Encoding mechanisms for this. >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. This has absolutely no impact on extensibility - it is just a token. Henrik
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2001 15:48:06 UTC